Gun Policy: Anybody want to boycott Walgreens?

http://www.nerve.com/news/current-events/walgreens-pharmacist-fired-for-firing-at-robbers-fires-back-with-lawsuit

Back in May, Walgreens pharmacist Jeremy Hoven was working the graveyard shift at the Benton Harbor, Michigan store with three other employees when two masked gunmen ran into the store and attempted a stick-up. As Hoven was dialing 911, one of the gunmen hopped the counter, aimed his piece at him, and, according to Hoven, began "jerking the gun's trigger." As it turned out, Hoven was packing himself, having procured a concealed-weapon permit after the same store was robbed when he was working there in 2007. So he blasted off several shots, and the failed drugstore cowboys vamoosed right quick. You would think the company would applaud Hoven for protecting the contents of the cash register, but no. For his troubles, Hoven was terminated a week later for violating Walgreens' "non-escalation policy," as well as company policy that forbids employees from carrying weapons at work. [....] t's a tricky situation. Suppose Hoven hadn't had a gun that night and had been shot dead. Does that mean Walgreens would have honored him for obeying company policy by picking up the costs of his funeral? I know I personally would rather be alive and unemployed, than a dead Walgreens martyr. As Hoven's attorney, Dan Swanson, put it, "Companies that do not allow employees to defend themselves put the employee in a position of simply submitting, possibly being killed or if they react in self-defense, being fired. That's a Hobson's Choice that no employee should be placed in." In their official response to the lawsuit, Walgreens lawyers actually tried to deny that there was even an armed robbery in progress. Judging by the video which Hoven's attorneys released in response, the Walgreens lawyers may have to rethink that argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6cGYpxH4QJE#!

Tombstone: "Here lies a man who didn't violate Walgreen's policy."

Statistically, Walgreens is right. The non-confrontational approach is statistically the safest route. Since corporations thrive on statistics, they set up their insurance to compensate and tell employees to back off.

If the handbook said, "in the case of a robbery, please have your own gun and take appropriate action," then they would be sued for billions of dollars. Think about it... There might be a pharmacist who was a former cop who does the "right" thing, but there may be a few thousand who shoot a customer who simply raises his voice.

Its politically correct (which I hate) but I would have fired him but privately patted him on the back and gave him a nice severance.

As Hoven was dialing 911, one of the gunmen hopped the counter, aimed his piece at him, and, according to Hoven, began "jerking the gun's trigger."

At this point, I would say that the gunman elevated the confrontation, and he was simply saving his own skin, company policy be damned.

The contents of the cash register are trivial compared to anything else in this scenario (referring to the lousy reporting where they suggest Walgreen's "applaud Hoven for protecting the contents of the cash register"). The cost of the paperwork for shooting one of the robbers even if no value is placed on their life would dwarf the few hundred in there; even a few thousand (it is a pharmacy, after all).

Quite frankly, if I work in a place that has a no-weapons policy and that is the environment I expect, I want to be damn sure that my coworker isn't going to go all cowboy and freak out somebody who's looking to take some money and run, which is a lot more common than someone who's out for blood.

If he wants to carry a gun at work, he should work someplace he's allowed to carry a gun. He had two options; work elsewhere or don't carry a gun. Everybody he works with made the calculated risk to work in a place with a no-guns/no-escalation policy and he overrode their decisions.

In any case, it's a larger topic. This case doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Though Walgreen's is definitely being incredibly slimy if they're suggesting there was no armed robbery.

If you look at the statistics, you're much more likely to be robbed at gunpoint in places where guns are prohibited.

Pssh. I'm never buying my frickin ammo from them EVER again.

There is a liqueur store in downtown Charleston that requires all employees to be visibly armed at work. They have never been robbed. Hmmm, wonder why that is.

Peace through superior firepower.

As far as Wallgreens, I don't shop there as it is.

If you survive... you can always get a new job. It is just one of the many benefits of not being killed.

racerfink wrote: If you look at the statistics, you're much more likely to be robbed at gunpoint in places where guns are prohibited.

Exactly. No guns for employees policy = Invitation for armed robbery.

Statistics tell me that dead robbers have a 0% chance at re-offending when let out of jail.

seriously, this:

Toyman01 wrote: Peace through superior firepower.

As a former violent armed robbery victim, I say let em pack heat. Mark my word, it will not happen to me again...next time I will reciprocate.

I work retail for overtime and the store owner asked me to pack. I work alone and have tons of knives right next to me.

Good for him. Most wouldn't have the balls to pull the trigger.

Sorry, I can't. I've got my local Walgreens trained on which family member gets what medicine. In their defense, we're very unlikely to see it robbed.

4cylndrfury wrote: seriously, this:

Toyman01 wrote: Peace through superior firepower.

As a former violent armed robbery victim, I say let em pack heat. Mark my word, it will not happen to me again...next time I will reciprocate.

BTDT as well. There must be at least the chance for a penalty for their wrongdoing, lord knows the law is no deterrent, or else why not do it. Just as criminals will avoid a house with a barking dog, they will avoid situations where they might be confronted with a gun as well.

carguy123 wrote: Just as criminals will avoid a house with a barking dog, they will avoid situations where they might be confronted with a gun as well.

In this particular situation, if the criminals knew anything about Walgreens in particular, would have been under the impression that they would not face guns there.

So there's no deterrent to their decision to hit that location. Dude's gun doesn't bark.

I tend to suspect that the criminals didn't know one way or the other about Walgreens. They didn't seem like research-y types to me.

Okay, I just about fell out of my chair when I went to the Walgreens site to check myself on whether it had an apostrophe and saw this on the front page:

I'm glad he did it. Reminds me of an old quote "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Seems appropriate here. Those masked idjits woulda had a gun to stick in the guys face regardless of the legality of owning said weapon. At least the guy had the opportunity to defend himself. Personally, I like places that are visibly armed.

In reply to mndsm:

"idjit" ? Is that you Sam?

I couldn't care less about the contents of the drawer, or even if they stole every piece of merchandise from the store. I think that Clerk did the right thing in defense of his own life. But he made a decision to work there, and carry when it was against Company policy. In that regard I have no sympathy for him, but I respect him for making that choice.

I wonder how Walgreens would handle this situation if this employee had not had a gun, but instead a lifelong training in a martial art? If instead of pulling a trigger, had had muscle-memory kick in and defended himself with a quick strike to the base of the attacker's nose and/or their throat?

I mean, I can understand Walgreen's policy... owning a gun doesn't mean you have the cognizance or training to use it properly, and I'd hazard that most people who pack don't. I think I fall into the crowd of "sucks that it happened, but I understand why he lost his job, although I think he should get a fat severance check".

I'm sickened by these corporations.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to mndsm: "idjit" ? Is that you Sam?

I am not this Sam you speak of. He's probably smarter than me.

ReverendDexter wrote: I wonder how Walgreens would handle this situation if this employee had not had a gun, but instead a lifelong training in a martial art? If instead of pulling a trigger, had had muscle-memory kick in and defended himself with a quick strike to the base of the attacker's nose and/or their throat?...

Most of these companies don't want you to engage any illegal activity in any way beyond submission or avoidance, regardless of the vehicle that engagment takes on.

mndsm wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to mndsm: "idjit" ? Is that you Sam?

I am not this Sam you speak of. He's probably smarter than me.

madmallard wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: I wonder how Walgreens would handle this situation if this employee had not had a gun, but instead a lifelong training in a martial art? If instead of pulling a trigger, had had muscle-memory kick in and defended himself with a quick strike to the base of the attacker's nose and/or their throat?...

Most of these companies don't want you to engage any illegal activity in any way beyond submission or avoidance, regardless of the vehicle that engagment takes on.

Last I checked, self-defense wasn't an illegal activity.

Basically I'm just pulling out the "damn near anything is a lethal weapon if you're trained or creative enough" card.