I didn’t hit him because I didn’t have a clear shot. I wanted to let him know that I was armed so that he wouldn’t come back. The cops got him the next day when he tried to have a body shop repair the bullet holes in his car.

As far as I know they never caught the people who killed the others.

The real problem is the violation of freedom of association that is ‘civil rights law’. The old southern obstructionists had it about right — once you start forcing people to associate with people they don’t want to associate with — even if the association is a mere business transaction — there will be no exceptions even for rational ‘discrimination.’

Did you take the job again after your month sabbatical? I would have had to tell the old boss to stick it, even if that meant eating ramen noodles, jello, and mac-and-cheese to make ends meet.

(I also wish you had hit the guy.)

Oh, one more thing, this is a heck of a position for Dominos to be in (very much akin to many banks due to the CRA BS, as a commenter stated above), with one out, however. If they had not stopped their employees from exercising their right to defend themselves, they may have prevented some of the suits, at least. That’s what the lawsuit should be about, if anything at all.

If your aim were better, one such problem would have been solved! No lawyers, no courts, no trial, no prison, no wasted taxpayer dollars.

Delivery areas and times are the company’s business, not DOJ’s.

> Since assumption of risk no longer applies to firefighters and police, it certainly won’t apply here.

I don’t think its that simple. i have never heard of a cop or his widow suing becuase he got shot in a bad neighborhood. if you are a cop you obviously assume that risk. then again, isn’t there also worker’s comp for that sort of thing?

Also you can’t apply assumption of risk if, say, a cop or a firefighter run into a burning house to save people, or something like that. But that is covered under the exception to assumption of risk that “danger invites rescue.” And that principle is not limited to cops and firefighters. indeed that line “danger invites rescue” comes from a case when an ordinary man ran onto train tracks to rescue a child but ended up being hit himself. when his survivors sued the train company, the train company pled assumption of risk, and was shot down on that logic.

By comparison i think it would be a stretch to say danger invites pizza. That employee would know, perhaps better than the company, how dangerous the neighborhood is. i won’t claim to know the whole law in this area, but i doubt they would create an exemption from the assumption of risk defense to cover pizza deliveries. he didn’t have to be a pizza delivery boy. he could have done alot of different jobs. and having chosen that job, he can’t complain that he got sent somewhere unsafe. he always had an option: quitting.