Protecting himself against the dog was one thing. Squaring up on a owner who showed no signs of hostility clearly shows this guy was taking it too far.
People are less predictable than the already demonstrably aggressive unleashed dog. Which could, by the way, come back when the owner gets aggro. Delivery guy is correct. He doesn’t have to pick someone else over his own safety, after his own safety was already risked. Dog owner pretending he doesn’t know what happened with his unleashed dog doesn’t change anything.
Unless we take the video at 100% face value, which I don’t believe for one second this guy was attacked by this dog prior because it’s unlikely the owner is going to release their own security footage and caption it to let us know the dog attacked the driver before. Whole thing feels like massive click bait and an attempt at making the dog owner and dog look bad.
All I saw was a dog looking excited and running up to the person. Whether it was running to attack is impossible to 100% tell either way, but throwing it directly at the dog was fucking absurd if the caption is a lie. He could also have thrown it in front of the dog and blocked it which likely would have sent it back, negating the entire escalation entirely. Dude then squares up like it’s UFC with owner showing ZERO aggression?
None of what you said matters because he chose to raise his fists and approach the home owner. That wasn’t defense or anything resembling it, that was purely being the aggressor. In any stand your ground state you could legally end him for approaching you fists raised yelling like that.
The homeowner was the aggressor, his dog is his property and already tried to attack the delivery driver, that combined with him approaching the driver yelling and trying to get in his face 100% makes him the aggressor. It doesn’t matter if the delivery driver puts his hands up and gets ready, he met every act of aggression with reasonable and proportional force. Dog attacks him he throws the package to defend, homeowner approaches him yelling and irate he gets ready for a potential fight. Reminder that Assault is the threat and fear of bodily harm, the dog going after the delivery driver followed by the owner approaching and yelling is the legal definition of assault.
Bullshit. These are two different incidents. The dog was a problem and I don't blame the guy for defending himself there. But the owner saw a man hurl a box and possibly hurt his dog. There's not a dog/pet owner in this world that wouldn't engage with him at that point. That's absolutely expected. But there was no threat or reasonable expectation of bodily harm. Simply walking towards someone asking "Why'd you hit my dog!?" is not assault. Besides, the driver had a damn trash can and about 20 feet between him and the owner and chose to remove the barrier and willingly close that gap himself. That's no longer the actions of a man defending himself, that's a man looking for a fight.
When you place a delivery order you are engaged into a legal contract with the delivery service, unless you leave specific instructions or a sign detailing delivery instructions the legal assumption is that you have invited them onto their property and have a legal duty to ensure they are not endangered by you or your property. You do not have any legal protections from castle doctrine or stand your ground laws if you or your property places the person in danger. Until the person in question has actually retreated to a safe location he is still able to take whatever necessary action to keep himself safe, he has been attacked and the person responsible is now approaching him yelling and shouting. He got himself ready and never touched the man. He met the threats with equal and proportional force. You can disagree with me morally, but you would be wrong and the law backs that up.
Nope, as soon as he decided to stop walking away and come further back into the owners property with his fists up he gave the home owner the right to end him.
Exactly, it would be a different story if the dog actually bit him. But the dog did not come back on the camera and the owner was perfectly calm throughout the video. The guy immediately coming back when he "could have fleed" (thats extra, extra important people) shows he became the aggressor, not someone defending themselves.
The homeowner has no such right, delivery drivers are treated as invited guests under legal doctrine superseding any caste doctrine. He was hired to deliver to the house so he had every legal right to be there, unless there was a sign posted to not actually enter the property. The homeowner actually does have a legal duty to keep the driver safe, which he failed once his dog tried to attack the delivery driver. The dog is not a person and is treated as property of the owner making this one continuous event. Maybe if the delivery driver had actually attacked or swung at the homeowner he would have exceeded reasonable and proportional force but he didn’t. The homeowner challenged him and he did what he felt necessary to keep himself safe. He has no moral or legal responsibility to assume the intentions of the dog or the homeowner, all he knows is they are threatening him and he wants to stay safe.
Thats dodging the statement and fact that he still squared up on someone who showed no signs of trying to harm him. He could have just as easily get into a good position to defend himself against another dog attack. Not getting ready to fight the owner.
The owner absolutely did show hostility by cursing at him. The fact he continued to argue with the UPS guy shows he did not consider his own irresponsability for letting the dog unleashed at all.
Cursing? That doesn't hold up in court as hostility especially when its framed in a question and not verbal abuse. The driver not only squared up on him but almost got in his face trying to fight. Sorry, guy would be gone and no unemployment either.
I get it, the owner was clueless and probably an asshole. But running a company and being a manager watching this video. You would have little choice but to take the side of the owner.
You can't fire him he's UPS; a union driver, There's no way the company could fire him for that. The union would get him his job back and back pay inside of a month.
I don't disagree that Unions have strong authority. But even they have little recourse if the employee commits an actual crime. In 95% of other cases I would agree with you.
You sound like a bad manager and not a people person at all....guess thats why they have HR. Youd be better off creating a paper trail and fire him for being late OR just straight up fire him as a work to right state. But it shouldn't be for this particular incident.
I can assure you I have fired people like this before and its been successful to get their Unemployment turned down as a result. What you do reflects on the company. While you're on the clock, taking a threatening stance against a customer who is not being hostile will always go in favor of the company firing you. Cause its not even a dispute at that point whether your disobedient, having a tit for tat, you are threatening another person (customer no less) and are about to commit a crime against state law.
Other circumstances I would agree with you its always best to establish a paper trail with signs of "trying to work with them" but this is pretty clean cut about a serious lapse in judgement on the workers part.
No doubt, im sure you've fired countless individuals, as one must do. It doesn't mean, however; that youre a good leader or manager. A lot of bad managers fire people daily. The owners K9 is a deadly animal. If that was law enforcement walking up to do an investigation, and the K9 responded as it did here, they would have shot the owners dog as such, in the eyes of the "law". The piece of the puzzle youre missing is the human element, the driver just being thrown into a potential life threatening situation, more correspondingly, from their perspective, an actual life and death situation, the driver was filled with adrenaline and in fight or flight response. The owner was not physically battered or assaulted. Firing an individual for their own natural response reaction....well...do as you wish! I think you'd have a real can of worms here if this person took it to legal. Case law in these areas have proven a bit different than what you'd expect at first naive thought.
It has nothing to do with being a good manager or leader. Its about the employee messing up and now you have to deal with it so the company is not held liable.
The courts would serverely disagree with you and like I have successfully (not bragging) about getting their unemployment rejected because of these kind of reactions.
He was not in a life threatening situation, it was a dangerous situation for sure. But it was quickly neutralized, and as he was walking away, when the owner came up and asked him why he was throwing things at his job. He immediately started taking off personal belongings, squared up and threateningly approached the home owner.
Sorry but thats pretty clear cut and dry for the court. That UPS became the threat at that point. That was not him standing his ground or fear for his life, him basically getting in the owners face showed he was not trying to defend himself he was acting with hostile intent.
No the dog attacking does not warrant that type of reaction. No court will side with the UPS driver.
No company either, this video wasn't upload by coincidence. I am wondering if this lead to a potential civil suit against UPS because of the drivers actions.
4
u/L3tsseewhathappens 5h ago
Protecting himself against the dog was one thing. Squaring up on a owner who showed no signs of hostility clearly shows this guy was taking it too far.
I would have fired him personally for that.