Watch full video on YouTube
Armed 7-Eleven Clerk Shoots Attacker & Gets Fired
By Colion Noir
By Colion Noir
By Colion Noir
Watch full video on YouTube
28 Comments
This situation raises important questions about corporate responsibility and employee rights.
It’s a slippery slope. Companies can’t ignore the law, even for PR.
This case might encourage more employees to carry firearms for protection.
Or it might make them hesitant, knowing their job could be at risk.
The clerk acted in self-defense. The company’s decision seems unethical and unfair.
I hope the clerk gets legal support. This shouldn’t stand.
This story is a perfect example of why carry permits and self-defense training matter.
Absolutely. People need to be prepared, even at work.
But it’s also a reminder that companies might not have your back.
Self-defense should be non-negotiable. Firing the clerk sends a bad message to employees.
Exactly. It sets a dangerous precedent for future incidents.
Self-defense is a right, but companies seem to prioritize liability over ethics.
It’s a sad reality. Profits often come before people’s safety.
The company’s decision seems reckless. They’re likely to face lawsuits or protests.
Customers and employees won’t stay quiet about this injustice.
The video clearly shows the attack. Firing the clerk is a potential act of corporate cowardice.
Cowardice is the right word. They’re more worried about PR than justice.
This highlights why workplace policies need to balance safety and legal rights. Expect more backlash from customers.
Customers might boycott the company if they side too strongly with the attacker.
This is a tough situation. While self-defense is a right, company policies can be restrictive. What are the legal implications here?
I wonder if any laws were broken. The video shows the attacker clearly provoked the situation.
Legally, self-defense is usually justified, but employers often have different standards. It’s a complex issue.
The video shows clear evidence of the attack. How can the company justify firing the clerk?
Probably to avoid legal trouble or bad publicity. It’s a weak move.
This could set a precedent for other businesses. Will they now discourage self-defense?
It’s a chilling thought. Companies shouldn’t be deciding legal matters.
Companies should respect the right to self-defense. Firing someone for protecting their life is unjust.
I agree. The clerk was just following the law. Employers need to respect that.