[Cyber-Bully]

Man with legal CHL on GM property in Michigan responds to a woman being murdered. Claims he is fired for his actions:



"The lady kept saying 'I'm dying, someone help' and it was just natural reaction," said Didarul Sarder, SP+ Valet Supervisor. "I just see this lady getting stabbed. I only had like half a second to think and I un-holstered my firearm and pointed it at her to drop the knife."

The victim, identified as Stephanie Kerr, is in critical condition, and lucky the stabbing didn't go any further, according to city officials. All of which is why Sarder says he was surprised to be fired on the spot by a GM employee, then escorted off the property.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/88543818-story

 

[Kalashnikov47]

Political correctness is both dangerous AND lethal as proven time and time again... definitely not the first time something like this has happened, it happens a lot...people are terminated for saving someone else because its not politically correct...

 

[Runamok]

Yet another reason why I will never buy another Government Motors car. Good on the young man for pulling his gun even though it may have cost him his job. Someone in the area should be very proud to give him another place of employment AND let him carry. I sure would.

 

[Bearack]

I'm no GM fan as I honestly wished they would have gone bankrupt and restructured as they needed to go the way of Ford and become a stable company.

That being said, it doesn't necessarily sound like GM did the firing. He worked for a contracted company that supplied valet service to the plant. The valet vendor escorted him from the property.

It also sounds as if he broke a company policy. I disagree that any company should disarm their employees, but I also think it is their right to do as they chose within the guidelines of the law. If they have a no gun policy, he broke the policy.

That being said, I'm surely glad he pulled his firearm and saved the women. I'm also glad he was fired as this would have been a media no story about a person with a gun, saving a women's life. This brought to light that CCW can save lives. This person will more then likely get job offers from gun friendly company's at probably a higher rate anyhow.

 

[juskom95]

It also sounds as if he broke a company policy. I disagree that any company should disarm their employees, but I also think it is their right to do as they chose within the guidelines of the law. If they have a no gun policy, he broke the policy.

I agree that he broke policy, but I also think that encourages people to allow violence to happen in front of them in order to keep themselves 'safe'.

 

[Harmless Drudge]

This situation always reminds me of the Prisoners' Dilemma, a paradox wherein because the individual can't rely on others to make the best choices for all, he has to make a personal choice for himself that is bad, but not as bad as it could be based on the flawed thinking of others.

Right now, there is an advantage to companies that bar firearms. They are more insurable, as there is a perceived greater threat of accident than attack. Also, the company is usually held liable for incidents arising from permitting firearms, while generally not liable for being a soft target in the absence of the banned firearms.

Consider two scenarios :

1) Unchallenged gunman kills 11

2) CCW holder shoots gunman after 3, but also accidentally kills 1 innocent bystander in the process = 4 dead

Clearly, #2 is preferable, because 7 lives are saved, but it also bears a lot more civil liability.

Singularly, banning guns is advantageous for a single company, but as as whole, it makes all such companies, and all companies in general, more of a target, making it a bad decision for the nation as a whole.

The only solution is to divorce the disincentive from the process by either making companies that prevent fully-functional people from defending themselves and others partially civilly liable for the incident, or by limiting the liability of the company and the good samaritans who try to intervene in good faith, regardless of the outcome of the intervention.

 

[juskom95]

Right now, there is an advantage to companies that bar firearms. They are more insurable, as there is a perceived greater threat of accident than attack. Also, the company is usually held liable for incidents arising from permitting firearms, while generally not liable for being a soft target in the absence of the banned firearms.

Two problems with the above.

MANY companies have insurance who has exactly NO idea on what firearm are/are not permitted, so no impact.

A company does not have to allow firearms, they can just not ban them. There is a significant legal difference.

Singularly, it is advantageous, but as as whole, it makes all such companies, and all companies in general, more of a target, making it a bad decision for the nation as a whole.

Companies are driven by government induced political correctness.

The only solution is to divorce the disincentive from the process by either making companies that prevent fully-functional people from defending themselves and others partially civilly liable for the incident, or by limiting the liability of the company and the good samaritans who try to intervene in good faith, regardless of the outcome of the intervention.

A company could already be held civilly liable, but no judge would find a company guilty. :thumb:

 

[usmountains]

Sounds like the perp was stabbing the wrong GM employee that fired her.

Anyway, it sounds fishy. My insticts say the GN employee was in on it and didn't want witnesses so he fired the guy.

Ok, so a chick is stabbing a chick, the valet supervisor stops the violent chick and some GM dude comes and fires him. I say the perp chick was mad because the GM dude was her boyfriend, he pokes the other chick the night before and the perp chick finds out. The GM dude should be shot by both chicks for being a two timing double crossing dirt bag. End of story. Next case.

 

[rabbitone]

Man with legal CHL on GM property in Michigan responds to a woman being murdered. Claims he is fired for his actions:



"The lady kept saying 'I'm dying, someone help' and it was just natural reaction," said Didarul Sarder, SP+ Valet Supervisor. "I just see this lady getting stabbed. I only had like half a second to think and I un-holstered my firearm and pointed it at her to drop the knife."

The victim, identified as Stephanie Kerr, is in critical condition, and lucky the stabbing didn't go any further, according to city officials. All of which is why Sarder says he was surprised to be fired on the spot by a GM employee, then escorted off the property.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/88543818-story

As a retired GM manager living and working all my life in Michigan the story may be plausible. That is if it happened on a GM plant property or inside a GM office structure. Those specifics are important to this whole story. Also the legal “CHL” part needs more definition. Michigan changed from CCW to a Concealed Pistol License (CPL). I am not familiar with CHL.

When I was a GM manager the Royal Oak post office shootings in 1989 that killed 3 and wounded 6 changed many GM union contracts and company policies. GM made it a firing offense to discharge a firearm on GM plant property or inside a GM office structure unless the person was a designated part of a GM Security team.

This policy came about because of the peak layoffs going on back then people where terrified an irate co-worker could come and kill them. I remember in my employee briefing meetings having to stress this to employees that GM would provide security on the site and did not need to be ‘hot’ onsite, in the parking lots or in their vehicles. I can still hear people saying “…yeah but they don’t have a lot of security. I have never seen a security person in our cubes. Someone could easily come in here and waste me…” They had a valid point.

There were some exceptions to concealed carry that GM allowed contractors. Contractors had to notify GM security and get a waiver of firearms rules. This was allowed if contractors carried easily saleable items such as a plumber with a truck full of copper pipe.

So based on the story and my knowledge of the site (I worked there for two years) this appears to be correct. I would blame his contracting firm. The contracting firm had an obligation to go over GMs rules. I did it personally with all contractors that worked for me as a welcome packet. To get in the tech center all it takes is a window sticker on the car and an employee badge and you are in a building. I never considered it ‘tight’ security.

I would tell the young man if he worked a contractor for me I will take you lunch at the Bob Evans. There I would shake his hand, pat him on the back and apologize like hell. And say I carry too. Then I would get him his next job. This is the kind of person we want our teams. I have actually done this two other people in real life for different stupidity.

You all know why this is happening... Freedom dies from big government …

 

[Pitbull_Dallas]

I smell a lawsuit coming on. Regardless of GM rules, there are times that rules must be ignored and doing so forgiven. This is one of those cases. What was the guy supposed to do, let he woman die because of some rule put together by some executives?

 

[juskom95]

I smell a lawsuit coming on. Regardless of GM rules, there are times that rules must be ignored and doing so forgiven. This is one of those cases.

I cannot find the story now, but I believe he was re-hired. If I were him I would keep my resume out there . . . HR will be looking to fire him for anything.

What was the guy supposed to do, let he woman die because of some rule put together by some executives?

Yes.

 

[ManyFeathers]

If they fired me....

I could live with it

In fact, if that's the case, I'd be damn glad I was gone if that's how they felt!

The guy needs to hold his head up high and be proud he did the right thing!

Job be damned

 

[MikeK]

We complain that the other side spins things, yet we're just as guilty. This thread is a good example.

First off, he was not "fired". He was escorted off site.

Secondly, it wasn't because he "saved a woman's life". It was because he brought a gun onto their property against their site rules.

I hope all goes well with him and there are no repercussions at his work. Jobs are too hard to find these days. And he's a hero in every sense of the word.

But before we can keep pointing fingers at others for their behavior, we need to take a look at our own, or we're just as big of hypocrites as they are.

 

[Runamok]

We complain that the other side spins things, yet we're just as guilty. This thread is a good example.

First off, he was not "fired". He was escorted off site.

Secondly, it wasn't because he "saved a woman's life". It was because he brought a gun onto their property against their site rules.

I hope all goes well with him and there are no repercussions at his work. Jobs are too hard to find these days. And he's a hero in every sense of the word.

But before we can keep pointing fingers at others for their behavior, we need to take a look at our own, or we're just as big of hypocrites as they are.

While I agree with you as far as distorting things the young man sure feels as if he has been fired and didn't seem to think he had a job to go back to when you watch the video interview.

If he was hired specifically to valet at this plant GM can say that they didn't fire him (as they never really hired him directly) but if he was hired solely to staff that location then the contractor he works for may have to get rid of him because of that ban.

There was really no reason for him to be escorted off of the property. They could have easily had him secure the firearm in his car and go about the day. I guess time will tell (if the coverage continues) of exactly what his fate will be.

 

[Ian Treloar]

By the evidence presented the guy still did a moral and heroic thing when many would either just watch or run away.

I will not wear the label of 'hypocrite' just because you want to dish it out.

 

[Identity Mine]

The suspect has since been identified as the daughter of the victim.

Suddenly my family fights don't seem so bad.

 

[john1969]

hero fired for using concealed handgun to save woman’s 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.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘i...ealed-handgun-to-save-woman’s-life/ar-BBpp9l8

 

[ActionJackson]

Man with legal CHL on GM property in Michigan responds to a woman being murdered. Claims he is fired for his actions:



"The lady kept saying 'I'm dying, someone help' and it was just natural reaction," said Didarul Sarder, SP+ Valet Supervisor. "I just see this lady getting stabbed. I only had like half a second to think and I un-holstered my firearm and pointed it at her to drop the knife."

The victim, identified as Stephanie Kerr, is in critical condition, and lucky the stabbing didn't go any further, according to city officials. All of which is why Sarder says he was surprised to be fired on the spot by a GM employee, then escorted off the property.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/88543818-story

Hmmmm ... I just found another reason to buy a Ford. I'm not fond of any company (big or small) that thwarts a person's right to carry a self defense tool.

 

[john1969]

This story already posted. Mod may delete.

 

[juskom95]

Hmmmm ... I just found another reason to buy a Ford. I'm not fond of any company (big or small) that thwarts a person's right to carry a self defense tool.

Considering most businesses ban carrying of any weapon, Ford included, keep looking. :thumb: