Me too.

Yeah, until it comes to light and on top of everything else you've got "impersonating an officer" to deal with.

I think that only happens to rappers.

I think that only happens to rappers.

Its only impersonating if you actually claim to be an officer or represent yourself as such. There is no law against wearing uniforms. Plenty of people have a legitimate need to wear a such uniforms, including security guards and male strippers. You can't fraudulently wear a badge or a patch from the local police department, obviously, but as long as you don't there is no crime. If you're afraid of being called on it you could always cut your pants in half and reattach the pieces with velcro.

This should be the fashion industry standard.

I'm told of a guy who did that so he could get to his ankle holster effectively....

But you can shoot the people who might make it come to light. It's genius!

Though I still like the cut-pants idea. I may need to get a pair.

~J

Bratpacks and kigyozoku might make dangerous bystanders, especially in extraction and kidnapping missions. Corp kids with chrome or connections trying to prove their loyalty to the family...

If you walk into a bank wearing a handgun in a hip holster, you might not be violating any laws, but the bank is private property and they can deny you permission to enter. If the guard draws and points a gun at you while asking you to disarm or leave, then that might constitute assault, but a judge or jury might well side with the guard.

One of the "stupid crook" stories I've heard involves a guy trying to rob a bank that was near an FBI office, and it happened to be payday, so several of the people in line were FBI officers there to cash/deposit paychecks (this was long before automatic deposit was common). As I heard the story, no shots were fired, but the question was which G-man would get credit for the arrest, since several of them drew badges and guns simultaneously.

And then there's robbing donut stores, which is just asking to cross paths with police.

When I worked at a dunkin donut shop in Albuquerque,NM we always gave free coffee and donuts to the local law enforcement for that reason We got held up once while I worked there. He never made it out of the parking lot. A trooper was pulling in for coffee and noticed the guy tossing the checks from the register out the window as he was escaping.

Had I been armed, this definitly would have been a situation I would have attempted to at least flash a little iron, as I could see the guy was trying to rob us with a bic lighter stuck in his jacket pocket. However company policy was if they demand money, give it to them, or your fired. ( a policy that I liked to call "the ostrich policy" to the boss, and "Head up you arse" to anyone else) )

It's almost certainly the only sane policy. Do you really believe any store contains enough value in stealable goods to make protecting it worth the potential liability the company would be exposed to?

~J

So when they take you in the back and have you kneel on the floor keep telling yourself that.

It's less likely to happen if there's a no-resistance policy in place, and a suit against the company for it actually happening would, I suspect, be very difficult.

Not a lawyer, not legal advice.

~J

Filing such a lawsuit would be easy and any estate filing such a wrongful death suit would be likely to get a settlement.
The best policy for the company is one which does not address the potential for robbery at all and which clearly states that behind-the-counter workers are not employees of the company but are, instead, independent contractors. Thus, the decision to resist or not is one made by someone who is, by law, totally outside of the company's control in that situation. It also has the added bonus that the company is not required to provide health or retirement benefits and does not have to make any concessions for clerks with disabilities.

For the clerk, the best policy would be to comply unless the robber attempts to take you to a second location (which includes the back room). In such a case the robber is almost certainly going to kill and/or rape you, possibly in that order. In the unlikely event that he's a government agent framed for the murder of a former president trying desperately to stop a an act of nuclear terrorism and clear his name, you can apologize after he explains things

You'd be wrong. Failing to resist an armed robbery has a greatly increased chance of injury than resisting by attacking the offender with a firearm.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_table7.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

Furthermore, never allow yourself to be moved to crime scene #2. It's not going to end well. . .

This is true if the robber does not have a gun, but if the robber has a gun your chances or injury are increased slightly by resistance with a gun (and dramatically for every other form of resistance).

What's your source for this?

"First, victims who used guns were substantially more likely than victims in general or victims using other self-protection measures to face offenders armed with guns — 32.7 percent of victims who attacked the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, faced offenders with guns, compared to only 6.8 percent of all victims who used self-protection measures, and 2.2 percent of all victims. Second, victims who used guns were more likely to face multiple offenders — 33.2 percent of victims who attacked offenders with a gun and 34.5 percent of those who threatened with a gun confronted multiple adversaries, compared to 20.6 percent of all those who used self-protection measures, and 6.2 percent of all victims. These findings are consistent with the view that crime circumstances likely to appear more dangerous to victims are more likely to push victims into using guns. They are contrary to the speculation that crime outcomes are better for gun-wielding victims merely because other circumstances of the crime made successful outcomes more likely."

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...3432&st=100

Thanks!