One question i have is why do they do these drops at night. One of the biggest deterrants to theft is witnesses. You do the machines during the day and this is a lot less likely to happen
A couple of reasons. First, G4S has so much business that it has to be running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Second main reason being that all the servicing and re-stocking of the ATM's is done at night to avoid having the machines down during the day when customers are needing them most. Nighttime is when all the night deposit boxes at the bank are dealt with as well.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPLovecraft
I am beginning to question the moral character of those who cheer for Vancouver.
Yes. When something like this happens we need to place blames as excessively and swiftly as possible. His parents should also be shot. Plus, has anyone thought to blame the victims yet, what are they thinking turning their back on a newish coworker.
I blame Westerns. So violent, with their robbing Wells Fargo stagecoaches and all.
Last edited by Montana Moe; 06-17-2012 at 08:17 PM.
If you can suit the company for workplace sexual harassment, you can't suit them for workplace homicide? I'm not a lawyer so I'm only guessing.
You can sue an employer for all kinds of things, but you have to actually show negligence if you're going to attempt to actually win a suit based in negligence. If they followed their procedures and those procedures were reasonable I don't see where that negligence exists.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
You can sue an employer for all kinds of things, but you have to actually show negligence if you're going to attempt to actually win a suit based in negligence. If they followed their procedures and those procedures were reasonable I don't see where that negligence exists.
I don't think the Coyotes are in the clear just yet..
Marge Gunderson: So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
If you can sue the company for workplace sexual harassment, you can't sue them for workplace homicide? I'm not a lawyer so I'm only guessing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
You can sue an employer for all kinds of things, but you have to actually show negligence if you're going to attempt to actually win a suit based in negligence. If they followed their procedures and those procedures were reasonable I don't see where that negligence exists.
I'm not a lawyer either, so I don't know. I just figure that there has to be some reasonable chance of success for a family going through this to want to go through a pro-longed lawsuit.
If the company did everything that could reasonably be expected then I really don't see how they would be held liable though. As far as I know this situation has never happened before, so it would seem unlikely that the company knew it was coming and failed to take action?
I'm guessing the only thing they could be sued for would be improper hiring practices? Did they screen their applicants well enough before arming them?
I thought most companies these days check for Facebook accounts? I am sure a company that supplies its employees with guns wouldn't have hired him if they had have checked and noticed the "poping" people comment.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
In England there is the offence of corporate manslaughter. In Canada Bill C-45 attempted to achieve a similar but less targetted offence by amending s. 22.1 of the Criminal Code. The effect has not yet been successfully tested against an organisation although the pending case of R. v. Metron Construction et al. in Ontario should prove instructive. EDIT: Interestingly, 3 days ago Metron Construction pleaded guilty.
Quote:
This case is historic as it represents the first corporate guilty plea in Ontario under the Criminal Code as amended by Bill C-45 in 2004.
s. 22.1:
Spoiler!
22.1 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove negligence, an
organization is a party to the offence if
(a) acting within the scope of their authority
(i) one of its representatives is a party to the offence, or
(ii) two or more of its representatives engage in conduct, whether by
act or omission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that representative would have been a party to the
offence; and
(b) the senior officer who is responsible for the aspect of the organization’s
activities that is relevant to the offence departs – or the senior officers, collectively,
depart – markedly from the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could
reasonably be expected to prevent a representative of the organization from being a
party to the offence”.
__________________
Shot down in Flames!
Last edited by icarus; 06-18-2012 at 09:59 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to icarus For This Useful Post:
Now, obviously if the company had known a guy they'd just given a gun to was going to kill his co-workers, they likely wouldn't have given him a gun.
However, is it now reasonable to believe their hiring practices were sound with the hindsight of this mook? Obviously something slipped through the cracks.
I wonder how the screening process between private security, armored transport, police and military differ.
I wonder how the screening process between private security, armored transport, police and military differ.
And that's the interesting question. I've been through an RCMP security clearance screening process - for a civilian position that placed me nowhere near a gun. Based on the interviews I took, I would doubt that Baumgartner's process was anything that involved, quite naturally because of cost and time. Personally, I would expect they likely only did a background criminal check and a basic interview. He would also have had to get an firearms license, but I think those focus more on gun safety than anything else, no?
And that's the interesting question. I've been through an RCMP security clearance screening process - for a civilian position that placed me nowhere near a gun. Based on the interviews I took, I would doubt that Baumgartner's process was anything that involved, quite naturally because of cost and time. Personally, I would expect they likely only did a background criminal check and a basic interview. He would also have had to get an firearms license, but I think those focus more on gun safety than anything else, no?
My experience is similar to yours, except I was surrounded by firearms most of the day and have my PAL.
However, I was never out on the street with a loaded weapon, which is where I wonder about the screening process.
It's one thing to screen someone for a PAL, it's another to screen them for walking around with a loaded weapon in public and the training that would necessitate.
And that's the thing. It strikes me that a security clearance should be mandatory. The RCMP has three levels, IIRC. My interviews were for the highest - "Top Secret" (seriously). CSIS has a security protocol that puts that to shame. I wonder if armed guards should be or are expected to get at least a basic security clearance. The problem, however, is cost and time. My check took almost six months to clear. Even if it took only 4-6 weeks, can the companies be expected to put up with that wait, knowing full well that the person they wish to hire likely will go somewhere else in the meantime?
I also wonder what the provincial/federal regulations are. Unless G4S's practices deviate significantly from regulations, such a thing is probably more an issue at the governmental level rather than the corporate.
And that's the interesting question. I've been through an RCMP security clearance screening process - for a civilian position that placed me nowhere near a gun. Based on the interviews I took, I would doubt that Baumgartner's process was anything that involved, quite naturally because of cost and time. Personally, I would expect they likely only did a background criminal check and a basic interview. He would also have had to get an firearms license, but I think those focus more on gun safety than anything else, no?
well we all know, guns don't kill people, people kill people...
