Biden administration suing Sheetz gas station

post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion

◄ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ► Go

Go to page...

04/22/2024 13:28

Subject: Biden administration suing Sheetz gas station

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in the sandwich I often stayed at my MIL's house in rural Maryland until past midnight, visiting with her, and then drove home through the night. It took me a couple of hours to get home. Sometimes I stopped at a Dunkin Donuts for a coffee, and sometimes I stopped at a Sheetz. I did this once a week. She was the last of her line in her town, and she depended on me a lot. Eventually she became too frail to stay in her home on her own, but I made this trip for years.

As a woman, driving in the middle of the night and needing to use a bathroom, I will not stop at a Sheetz if I think a former rapist is manning the store. It's crazy to think the government thinks it's reasonable to force people traveling at night to worry about whether or not a Sheetz employee is a threat to their safety. I had children at home who needed me. I had a MIL who needed me. I had elderly parents who needed me. What happens when women like me run into a criminally minded employee? Who do I sue if I become a crime victim because a criminal was working at a 24-hour convenience store? In the years I did stop at a Sheetz, it never crossed my mind that there might be criminally-minded emplyees eyeing me as a potential mark.

Seriously, do the good folks in the government not have wives, mothers, sisters who sometimes drive at night? Mostly women assume the role of caring for elderly relatives, and that often entails some sort of travel. We're doing the best we can, juggling our immediate families and our elderly relatives. We don't need to worry about this on top of everything else.

That’s a lot of drama.

1) people are convicted for a wide variety of crimes. Not all crimes are violent.

2) Rapists are the LEAST likely to be convicted for their crimes so you have zero reason to think that Sheetz only hiring non-felons makes you one tiny bit safer. It does not.

This is factually incorrect. It would reduce the risk slightly because of some of these people were convicted. It may not make a significant difference in the number of crimes committed on sheets property, but with a company that has 24,000 employees this policy is likely preventing some criminal activity because they are excluding applicants (with a criminal history) which indicates a higher risk of committing future crimes. The violent crime incidence rate in the US is around 1 incident for every 267 people each year. According to the FBI "sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record" Only around 1/3rd of adults have a criminal record, so the segment with a criminal record is getting convicted of murder at a rate 4.1x the rate of the population without a criminal record. For robbery and assault, people with records are convicted at a rate 4.5x the population without a criminal record. This means that excluding job applicants people with previous criminal records could reduce theoretically offer a substantial reduction regarding the odds that an employee commits murder, robbery, and assault on company premises. I would suspect that most crime at convenience stores is committed by non-employees given that the company gets around 1.6 million customers each day, so Sheetz has little control over this segment that is more impactful. . However, this policy will likely provide risk reduction for the company.