This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Not long after the incident in Hawaii where a criminal
attacked and killed several employees in a Xerox facility, JPFO
contacted five top Xerox corporate officials. We obtained the
names and addresses of these officials from their website, and
sent personalized letters to each of them.
In the letter we warned them about the seriously dangerous
problems that their blanket no-firearms policy might cause.
Bluntly stated, prohibiting employees from defending themselves
essentially set up the employees as targets for the next vicious
attacker. To date Xerox has not responded to the JPFO letter,
and we are unaware of any action the corporation has taken to
further protect employees in office buildings and warehouses.
But now Xerox has been warned. If another attack occurs in
a Xerox office building, it might be possible for the victims to
sue Xerox for failing to heed warnings ... and a lawsuit like
that could be a major wake-up call.
There's a strategy here. First, people can continue to
write to Xerox and demand to know why Xerox so far has refused to
answer the JPFO letter. These letters help by pressuring Xerox
to avoid taking a position in favor of victim disarmament. Xerox
must be reminded that it lost employees and public good will by
rendering them disarmed and defenseless.
Second, people can modify the same letter and send it to the
heads of other corporations. Put these corporations on notice
that by their anti-firearms policies, and their (possible)
support of "gun control," they are placing their employees and
business visitors into danger without allowing those people any
way to protect themselves. Remind the corporations that they
face potential legal liability for their negligence in this area.
Use this letter to help turn corporate America on its head.
Just paste it into your word processor, adjust the facts and
insert the correct names and addresses, personalize it so that it
comes from you or your organization, and then send it out. Let
JPFO know if you send a letter, and what response you get. JPFO
will post the results on the website for the world to see.
To make the letter most effective, use the cases and
statutes that apply in your state or in the state where the
company is located. You can get these cases and statutes from
Dial 911 and Die. Or you can just use Dial 911 and Die
as your legal reference point, citing the page number. Order the book
directly from the JPFO website or
by calling (262) 673-9745.
JPFO'S Letter to Xerox:
Dear [Mr. _____]:
Your corporation suffered negative publicity recently when a
criminal killed and injured a number of Xerox employees in a
Xerox facility in Hawaii. Our organization carefully monitors
workplace conditions where citizens are placed in physical
jeopardy by the actions and policies of their government or
employers. We are writing to offer some thoughts to help and to
ask for your response.
In the last two years, there have been many well-publicized
cases in which criminals attacked unarmed and undefended
employees, teachers and school children in public places. The
incident in your facility was one among the series. While
Department of Justice figures show violent crime rates dropping
on average nationwide, there appears to be an upsurge of
murderous attacks on unarmed and undefended people in schools and
office buildings.
Each of these public attack cases occurred in places where
the innocent victims were not only undefended but were also
forbidden to defend themselves adequately. In the Xerox case,
for example, the attacker faced no armed opposition whatsoever.
It seems rather logical that the attacker would choose the Xerox
facility precisely because the attacker had good reason to
believe that he would not face any armed resistance.
We have been informed that Xerox corporate policies prohibit
employees from carrying firearms or other weapons on the premises
(security guards excepted). This policy, however, virtually
assures that Xerox employees will be unarmed and undefended
targets for violent criminals.
In effect, Xerox's anti-weapons policy creates a dangerous
working condition for the employees and visitors on the property.
The policy "may be said to have created an especial temptation
and opportunity for criminal misconduct." Cohen v. Southland
Corp., 157 Cal. App. 3d 130, 140-41 (1994)(Southland Corp. could
be liable for failing to protect customers from criminal attack
on their premises). Although it seems like an obvious point,
recent comprehensive research has confirmed that criminals tend
to avoid assaulting, raping or attempting to murder people whom
the criminals think might be armed. See John R. Lott, Jr.,
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
(University of Chicago Press, 1998). The Xerox anti-weapons
policy sets up a favorable target for attackers.
For two reasons it is not enough for Xerox to respond to the
threat of criminal attack by merely providing telephones for
employees to "dial 911" for emergency help. First, less than 5
percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough
for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. Gordon Witkin,
Monika Guttman & Tracy Lenzy, This is 911 ... please hold,
U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1996, p. 30. As researchers put
it, "cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference
in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare." Ibid,
quoting the conclusions of the researchers, Northeastern
University Professor George Kelling and lawyer Catherine Coles.
Second, under the law in nearly every state the government
generally owes no duty to protect individual citizens from crime
or criminal attack. See e.g., Freitas v. City and County of
Honolulu, 574 P.2d 529, 532 (Haw. 1978), citing Riss v. City of
New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). To verify this legal
fact, we researched the law in all 50 states. We can supply you
with a book entitled Dial 911 and Die, which collects the
statutes and court decisions, if the legal references will assist
you. Legally, in most cases the victims are on their own to
defend themselves.
The Xerox corporate anti-weapons policy would seem to place
Xerox in a difficult situation. By assuring the criminals that
the victims are unprotected, Xerox is creating a dangerous
workplace environment for which Xerox may face liability.
Providing handy emergency telephones and depending upon local
police forces to protect the employees under violent attack will
likely not save any lives.
Knowing the facts set forth in this letter, would Xerox
management consider adjusting the no-weapons policy to allow non-
violent, non-criminal employees to carry firearms or other
protective weapons into the workplace for self-defense? If not,
what measures will Xerox take to protect its unarmed and
otherwise defenseless employees from future attacks like the one
in Hawaii?
We look forward to your response to our questions, and
appreciate your help in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Aaron Zelman
About Aaron Zelman
|
||||||||