Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Subdeacon Joe

‘I would do it all over again,’

Recommended Posts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/11/i-would-do-it-all-over-again-says-hero-fired-for-using-concealed-handgun-to-save-womans-life/

 

 

Didarul Sarder lost his job for pulling a gun to rescue a woman who was being stabbed to death, but he never regretted his split-second decision.

“I would do it all over again,” he told Fox affiliate WJBK. “If I could save this woman’s life over a job. I can get another job.”

Fortunately for Sarder, that won’t be necessary.

The 32-year-old has been offered his job back after his bosses at a General Motors Technical Center in Warren, Mich., reversed their unpopular decision, allowing the valet service supervisor to return to work.

The decision was praised by Warren Mayor Jim Fouts, who called Sarder a “hero” in a lengthy Facebook post commending his actions. He noted that Sarder had a valid concealed pistol license and “probably saved” a “woman from being murdered.”

“Had he not legally exercised his second amendment rights this woman would probably not be with us today,” he wrote. “He is employed by a GM contracted valet service. Right after it happened someone in authority asked him off the premises because he violated company rules with a gun. That was absolutely the wrong response to this hero. However that decision was over-ruled by higher ups and he now has his job back.

 

 

He shouldn't a oughta been fired in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should fire the person that ordered him off the premises.

 

Maybe some hot tar and feathers should be in the conversation also.

 

I guess I am a vindictive SOB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should fire the person that ordered him off the premises.

 

Maybe some hot tar and feathers should be in the conversation also.

 

I guess I am a vindictive SOB.

 

 

No...sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Me, I'd favor stakes, rawhide, and anthills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should fire the person that ordered him off the premises.

 

Maybe some hot tar and feathers should be in the conversation also.

 

I guess I am a vindictive SOB.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. The people responsible for making the policy should be given the axe not the employee who was bound to enforce it. But they won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd need to think long and hard before going back to a job with that employer. It's obviously not a safe place to work, what with all those CYA managers wandering around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe GM should change their policy?

Sure. But they won't. Too worried about workplace violence liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm satisfied with the outcome. It takes time to overcome the prejudice that has resulted from years of anti-gun propaganda. Time for reasonable people to see that blanket prohibitions are senseless, and infringe on the rights of others. And time for corporate types to see that their target customers do not want legal gun owners banned from carrying, and that good guys with guns are not a threat to their businesses.

 

Firing execs will not change the culture; the next exec in line that fills the job is just as likely to carry the same prejudices as the one that got canned. Only experience and education will produce meaningful change. And that takes time.

 

Well done, Didarul.

 

LL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm satisfied with the outcome. It takes time to overcome the prejudice that has resulted from years of anti-gun propaganda. Time for reasonable people to see that blanket prohibitions are senseless, and infringe on the rights of others. And time for corporate types to see that their target customers do not want legal gun owners banned from carrying, and that good guys with guns are not a threat to their businesses.

 

Firing execs will not change the culture; the next exec in line that fills the job is just as likely to carry the same prejudices as the one that got canned. Only experience and education will produce meaningful change. And that takes time.

 

Well done, Didarul.

 

LL

 

Very well said, LL.

 

I wo@# for a company that does not allow it's employees to be armed, nor are we allowed to have a firearm or ammo in our vehicles on company property. I hope they will begin to see the light and change that policy. A number of our offices are in high crime areas and the need for the employees to have the ability to protect themselves is strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should fire the person that ordered him off the premises.

 

Maybe some hot tar and feathers should be in the conversation also.

 

I guess I am a vindictive SOB.

That's one of the things I like about you, Charlie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wo@# for a company that does not allow it's employees to be armed, nor are we allowed to have a firearm or ammo in our vehicles on company property. I hope they will begin to see the light and change that policy. A number of our offices are in high crime areas and the need for the employees to have the ability to protect themselves is strong.

 

Ditto. We even have armed security for the parking lot in the morning & afternoon when people are coming to work and leaving because the neighborhood is so bad. But that doesn't help any associates who are being carjacked at the stop sign on the next block.

 

What's ironic is that one of the character witnesses on my carry permit application is our HR manager. But she was also the one who told me about the company policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calamity Kris, Sparky- Maybe you need to ask yourself what is more important- your LIFE, or your JOB ? Obviously your employers don't care about your lives. And, I've been where you are. 25 years with Coca Cola. Guess what their policy was ? If I had it to do over, I'd carry and to hell with their policy. Always had a gun in the car regardless of their policies. Oh, you want to search my car, boss? Not in this lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calamity Kris, Sparky- Maybe you need to ask yourself what is more important- your LIFE, or your JOB ? Obviously your employers don't care about your lives. And, I've been where you are. 25 years with Coca Cola. Guess what their policy was ? If I had it to do over, I'd carry and to hell with their policy. Always had a gun in the car regardless of their policies. Oh, you want to search my car, boss? Not in this lifetime.

 

I've already asked myself that question, and the answer is my own business, not my employer's. I had a boss years ago at another company, a VP, who took me aside one day and said, "The company will look out for itself. You need to look out for yourself and your family first." I've always followed his advice since then, and it's no different today.

 

"Oh, you want to search my pockets boss? Good luck with that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gives new meaning to the phrase, "Don't ask. Don't tell."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gives new meaning to the phrase, "Don't ask. Don't tell."

 

The phrase we use around here is "concealed means concealed."

 

If somebody asks, unless they've got a proper badge the only answer they get is a polite smile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blanket policies don't always work..But you still need policies to define what is correct and incorrect behavior.

 

The person got rehired but they are marked and probably doomed to be released at a later day.. If it is the last thing the organization does to erase the bad press and judgement of the few..

 

The bigger the organization, the more they want the employees to be like robots and act according to policies. Person gets wacked if they follow to the Tee or wacked if they vary.

 

Lawyers love to get an organization that flip-flops on their policies and discriminate someone working there. Better yet, organization doesn't even have a policy. Can not win either way and Lawyers get another big pay day. Sometimes it is benificial for the big company to get put in their place. Customers and clients pay for it in the long run.

 

Keep your job which provides your lively hood for family, education, partial retirement, health benefits, and take your chances with work violence or stand up and be unemployed? Tough choice.

 

Don;t ask, don't tell if you can skate that road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The phrase we use around here is "concealed means concealed."

 

If somebody asks, unless they've got a proper badge the only answer they get is a polite smile.

Friend of mine always used to respond with "Don't bet your life on it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago I worked in an office (gas utility) that was the last vestige of civilization in a neighborhood that had gone to the gangs. I asked an HR manager when we were going to leave the area and he candidly admitted that probably not until somebody got hurt.

 

I got a concealed permit and did so every day, even though the company line was "no guns on premises".

 

My boss (who I actually really liked) came one day and asked if I carried at work. I told him it was none of his business and that if the company wanted to escort me out, they could do so and I would go peacefully.

 

Didn't hear another word about it. Moved out of state a year or so later.

 

I understand why companies have certain policies, but I also understand that it takes a certain amount of common sense fortitude to know when not to enforce the policy when appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why companies have certain policies, but I also understand that it takes a certain amount of common sense fortitude to know when not to enforce the policy when appropriate.

 

In many cases a company won't be pushy about enforcing a policy like that unless somebody complains, or there's an obvious violation. In Sarder's case he drew on an attacker. That's pretty obvious, so they had to say something. Ideally it would have been "yes, it's against policy, but in this case it was justified" from the very beginning. But bureaucracies are a little slow on the uptake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If HQ makes company/location wide policy (no guns for this discussion), then whomever willingly and knowingly violates said policy (supervisor for not enforcing gun poliicy or employee bringing gun on property) is subject to disciplinary action. up to and including discharge. Site person was doing their job after becoming award of gun policy violation.. Probably best to kick that decision up the ladder after employee pulls gun to save woman but at the time, who knew it would go viro.. On the other hand, HQ may have made it known that site supervisors are suppose to handle it.. Whatever 'it' is. A perfect example of a darn if you do, darn if you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.