General Motors Fires Employee For Using A Gun To Stop A Knife Attack
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 9 months ago
An employee at a Michigan General Motors Technical Center said he was fired after he pulled a gun to stop a knife attack at the plant on Wednesday, but his bosses eventually reversed their decision and let him return to work.
Didarul Sarder, a 32-year-old valet service supervisor, “now has his job back,” Warren Mayor Jim Fouts said in a Facebook post.
Sarder said he had a valid concealed pistol license and was carrying his gun when he saw a 52-year-old woman being stabbed by another woman just outside the main entrance of the central office building, FOX2 reported.
“The lady kept saying ‘I’m dying, someone help,’ and it was just natural reaction,” Sarder said. “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.”
Sarder said he told the suspect to freeze until police arrived to arrest her. The woman who was stabbed, Stephanie Kerr, is in critical condition after being stabbed in the neck, back and abdomen, officials said.
Fouts told FOX2 the attack began when the 32-year-old suspect entered the plant asking to speak with Kerr. The two met in the lobby but eventually went outside. That’s when the suspect pulled a knife. The suspect hasn’t been identified because she hasn’t been charged or arraigned yet.
“I hope she makes it,” Sarder said. “Maybe those few seconds before the police arrived could be the difference between life and death.”
But after the incident was resolved, Sarder said a GM employee fired him for having the weapon on the premises.
“He said, ‘You shouldn’t have had a firearm here,’” Sarder said. “’After this is done he needs to be escorted off the property. He’s not welcome back here.’”
Sarder added: “I was really bummed out. I got a little emotional.”
Sarder said he had worked on the grounds for a company contracted by GM since December. He said he was never informed of a no-gun policy. Sarder’s wife, Jakia Sarder, told The Detroit Free Press that Sarder had worked for the company for almost 10 years.
“Right after it happened someone in authority asked him off the premises because he violated company rules with a gun,” Fouts wrote. “That was absolutely the wrong response to this hero. However that decision was over-ruled by higher ups and he now has his job back.”
But I’m willing to bet their policy still hasn’t changed and he still isn’t allowed to carry a gun. The company would rather the poor woman have perished than allow an employee to stop a crime with a weapon. Meh … yawn … what’s a life when there’s a corporate policy to consider?
On February 11, 2016 at 12:00 pm, Archer said:
Since the “unidentified suspect” allegedly “entered the plant asking to speak with [the victim, Stephanie] Kerr”, am I alone in assuming that Kerr worked at the plant?
IOW, the company would rather an employee have perished than allow another employee to stop a crime with a weapon.
Despicable.
On February 12, 2016 at 11:38 am, Jack Crabb said:
Yup.
On February 11, 2016 at 11:48 pm, Roger V. Tranfaglia said:
Does the unidentified attacker happen to be BLACK? Perhaps a MUSLIM? Who hasn’t been charged YET?
WHAT are we hiding?
On February 12, 2016 at 2:00 pm, Billy Mullins said:
In light of the company policy, I wonder if the victim couldn’t sue because of what would have (damned near did) resulted from said policy? Of course in Michigan it might not fly with a jury. I wonder if anything would be different if the other victims of mass shooters had sued or were to sue the property owners for endangering their lives by making their property a gun-free zone. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a strong statistical correlation between mass shooting venues and gun-free zones. What do you think? Herschel? Anybody?
On February 14, 2016 at 10:46 pm, henrybowman said:
This would fall afoul of the usual judicial sleaze. The judge would rule that the victim has no standing to sue, since she can’t sue about something that could have happened becaue of a policy, but actually didn’t happen because the policy was not followed.
If the carrier had been gunless and informed the victim that he would have been able to hold her attacker at gunpoint if it hadn’t been for that awful corporate policy, that hurdle goes away; but then she would have the burden of proving that the presence of a gun would have definitely made the difference between her being injured as badly as she was, and being injured less badly.
And yes, there’s a strong statistical correlation between spree shootings and gun-free zones. In the past 40 years, only one spree shooting has occurred that was NOT in a gun-free zone — Gabby Giffords.