A friend who works for prime just told me he got sent to that infamous shipper in Mississippi that beat the hell out of a driver and then had him charged with assault and disorderly conduct for not being able to move his truck after he was detained.
He said they are still clearly behaving paranoid and jumpy towards drivers and will refuse their loads in the future.
Why is Prime still hauling for these savages? They clearly don't care about their drivers.
The customer code is METOB for those of you who want to avoid them.
Why is Prime still hauling to the customer who beat the hell out of an innocent driver?
Page 1 of 7
Because the driver is the one who assulted the guard first.....
Maybe might want to read what actually happened and not just the story the driver came up with. You know the court documents where he was found guilty of disorderly conduct.
they have a system of disposable drivers not so for shippers. ........ trucking companies are trucking companies own worse enemy ...... the first guy that was going to be charged a lumper feel to unload something should have said kiss my ### and took the load back. ........ the first shipper that said were too busy to load you right now pull around back and we might get to you later on ...... puck off and leave .... ect. ect. ..... . its been easier for the carriers as it hasn't really cost them much compared to driver costs .
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If you are going to spread BS just keep your opinions to yourself.
The mods were right. This place is a cesspool of ignorance.
The video clearly showes he touched the guard first. If you can't see that you might want to get your eyes checked.
And it's not bs to point out he was found guilty of disorderly conduct.
And yes, I have to agree. Some people here are willfully ignorant.
If they drive for Prime they can refuse the load, and move on. Prime isn't the only one going in and out of there, it's called business, and meeting your profit goals. I wasn't there to say who hit who first, but will let the court sort it out, both civil and criminal, that is why we have them.
That does not constitute the right to take the driver and his wife to the ground.
Imagine if you made light contact with someone partially blocking the door entering the truck stop.
Does that give them the right to take you to the ground?
The problem is common sense ain’t to common anymore
I have learned to go with THESE mods and what they have to say now and then. *And maybe a little tiny bit of vice versa as well
If you are dealing with a individual who has gained parole or made bail until Trial then he or she is absolutely able to go there and work etc until that day. When the Courts finish with him and her then the sentencing part begins.
One little tidbit. If the bad guy is hurting children or women in any way... rest easy, something beyond justice will get to that person at some point down the o=ra
1. The driver was at a secured facility.
2. The driver flat refused to follow the very simple instructions to remove his hands from his pockets.
3. While he claims to have been trying to leave the evidence doesn't hold up.
The truck’s hood was still open.
His wife didn't move.
One of the news reports stated the guard testified the driver never said he was leaving.
4. He didn't have to try a bull his way through the guard. He wasn't in a doorway or restricted in any way. He could have stepped back and try to go around.
5. After found guilty of disorderly conduct, his first statement basically was the court is corrupt. I point this out to emphasize his mindset that everyone is out to get him. Or at least everyone in this town...
All that being said, did the guard make it easy for that initial contact?
Did the guard overreact? Well, without knowing how often they have to deal with people trying to break into the warehouse, I can't answer that. I would give it better than even odds the guard did overreact.
Did the driver create the situation by possibly hiding weapons and then try and bull his way through the guard? Yes he did.
All I've really been trying to say is that the driver is not the victim here. His actions contributed at least equally, if not more to the situation.
Page 1 of 7