pthor1231 said:WalStMonky said:Nobody except me wonders if OP is a 1099 guy or a W-2 drone?

Not really. In my experience people who get door to door marketing type jobs believe the lies that companies tell them (oh, a 1099 is better for you, there is less taken out in taxes, trust me).

Well it makes a difference who owns and insures the vehicle. If he's a 1099 guy and it's his car, he's the company and he's asking if he's liable for his own loss. You are correct that a lot of 1099 issuers lead their jobbers to believe they're employees. Perhaps that's the case with OP, but we'll never know if he doesn't tell us.

What things did you do to be tough that you now regret?

No gun, used my fists. If I had a mulligan I would just hand over the money. It's only worth it in a testosterone induced haze. Money is easy to get more of, they print it all day long.

WalStMonky said:Nobody except me wonders if OP is a 1099 guy or a W-2 drone?Here is the California test (minus a few caveats about nominal independent employment) in a nutshell from the CA Dept. of Industrial Relations website:

Q. The person I work for tells me that I am an independent contractor and not an employee. He does not make any payroll deductions or withholdings for taxes, social security, etc., when he pays me, and at the end of the year he provides me with an IRS form 1099 rather than a W-2. By paying me in this manner does it mean I am automatically an independent contractor?

A. No. The fact that a person who provides services is paid as an independent contractor, that is, without payroll deductions and with income reported by an IRS form 1099 rather than a W-2, is of no significance whatsoever in determining employment status. Your employer cannot change your status from that of an employee to one of an independent contractor by illegally requiring you to assume a burden that the law imposes directly on the employer, that being, withholding payroll taxes and reporting such withholdings to the taxing authorities.

Q. How do I know if I am an employee or an independent contractor?

A. There is no set definition of the term "independent contractor" and as such, one must look to the interpretations of the courts and enforcement agencies to decide if in a particular situation a worker is an employee or independent contractor. In handling a matter where employment status is an issue, that is, employee or independent contractor, DLSE starts with the presumption that the worker is an employee. Labor Code Section 3357. This is a rebuttable presumption however, and the actual determination of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor depends upon a number of factors, all of which must be considered, and none of which is controlling by itself. Consequently, it is necessary to closely examine the facts of each service relationship and then apply the law to those facts. For most matters before the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), depending on the remedial nature of the legislation at issue, this means applying the "multi-factor" or the "economic realities" test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. In applying the economic realities test, the most significant factor to be considered is whether the person to whom service is rendered (the employer or principal) has control or the right to control the worker both as to the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed. Additional factors that may be considered depending on the issue involved are:

1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;

2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;

3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;

4. The alleged employee’s investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;

5. Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;

6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;

7. The alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;

8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed;

9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;

10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and

11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests.

Even where there is an absence of control over work details, an employer-employee relationship will be found if (1) the principal retains pervasive control over the operation as a whole, (2) the worker’s duties are an integral part of the operation, and (3) the nature of the work makes detailed control unnecessary. (Yellow Cab Cooperative v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1288)
Other points to remember in determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor are that the existence of a written agreement purporting to establish an independent contractor relationship is not determinative (Borello, Id.at 349), and the fact that a worker is issued a 1099 form rather than a W-2 form is also not determinative with respect to independent contractor status. (Toyota Motor Sales v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 877)

Wow, that comment generated a strong response.

I only stated the law from a recent refresher on the matter. The truth is that the police are impotent in preventing the commission of a crime. Only an armed citizen stands a chance of resisting. The best scenario is for a fatally wounded perpetrator at the scene, and preferably a DOA perp.

LostConsumer said:Crazytree said:or better yet... don't tell the officers a F'N thing... because they'll just lie about what you said... which is something I deal with all the time. best bet is to make NO STATEMENT AT ALL.... then they can't lie about your statement... because you never made one. let your lawyer do the explaining for you.If they intentionally lie about something you say, why wouldn't they just lie and make something up even if you didn't say anything?you give them a set of facts, and then they alter the facts and your statement to best suit their needs. if you give them no facts, they have no point of reference. most cops have no problem manipulating your statement... but it's a different story when the cops say you made a voluntary statement and the defendant claims they lawyered up right off the bat. that's just the way it works.

This is not the case in Tennessee.

To use you CCW you must reasonably feel your life or the life of someone else (wife,child, etc) is threatened or in threat serious bodily harm.

You may not use your weapon to protect property. BTW my permint is in process, and I just completed the class.

The threat must be credible or you get in trouble with the law. If a guy across a deep ravine is yelling he is going to kill you, yet he has no weapon that can reach you you can't just shoot him for the fun of it.

RightPatriot said:jumblies said:Regarding a CCW:

Deadly force cannot be used to prevent a theft in some states. Imminent SERIOUS bodily injury or death are justifiable uses of deadly force.

Additionally, some states allow open carry of firearms on the passenger seat when in a vehicle.

A locked door is a much better remedy, along with your right foot on the gas.

OP: sorry for your loss and unfortunate experience.

Nearly all states allow deadly force to stop a robbery, whether or not there is serious bodily injury or death are imminent.

If you were selling vacuums you deserved to get robbed. Now get a real job and contribute to society.