Thread: Carry at Work
View Single Post
Old November 2, 2013, 02:25 PM   #124
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
A rough parallel might be found in the application of the legal doctrine of necessity as a defense against tort liability. Under certain circumstances, the law will recognize a privilege to do something which would violate the property rights of another. But the circumstances must be extreme, and the person invoking the claim of necessity must still pay for the damage he did.
So how did you determine that Cothran met that criteria or did you? Cothran caused no damage. The crook beat feet when he saw the gun. But Cothran lost his job.

Since Cothran had good reason to fear robbery based on the facts of the case is he then morally justified to ignore company policy and carry?
I said a "rough parallel"; that is not the same as an "exact paralllel." In Mr. Cothan's case he bears the natural consequence of violating an employment rule, i. e., loss of his job.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03546 seconds with 8 queries