Gun Policy: Anybody want to boycott Walgreens?

my wording was broken.

engage with those in illegal activity at the moment.

Things can go poorly resisting or "following company policy". Sometimes, responding with force changes what would have been a quick grab the cash and run into a life and death struggle. On the other hand, a local video store had a "no resistance" policy, and both of its employees were moved to a back store room and shot in the head. See the problem is, people who are willing to stick a gun in someone else's face tend to be somewhat unpredictable. (Who knew?) In this case, when said "robber" is actively trying to pull the trigger on you, what've you got to loose? My guess is he'll be working at a local gun store before the end of the day.

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.

Illegal activity? Do you mean prevent illegal activity? The employee didn't do anything illegal.

Edit: Never mind. I got caught up on page two.

If the company tells me: don't argue, do what they say, and let them take our money, I'm going to listen. I would've done the exact opposite of what that guy did. It's not my money, it's the company's money. Dunno about all of you, but I'm not risking a bullet to the face for my employer, even if I do like my job.

And no, I won't boycott Walgreens for this.

Twin_Cam wrote: Dunno about all of you, but I'm not risking a bullet to the face for my employer, even if I do like my job.

Well, you see... he was faced with a bullet to the face anyway. He could have just followed store policy and got a nice mind enema. Instead he got to live and find a new job. In his place... I'd be happy with the outcome and move on to a different job.

Seems like the "jerking at the trigger" is being taken to mean attempting to pull it.

I'll grant you, I don't know much about guns. But is it really so hard to pull the trigger that dude had time after seeing the jerking to get his own gun out and fire before numbnutz-the-super-criminal actually succeeded in pulling the trigger?

Or is it possible that the jerking motion was brandishing rather than attempting to shoot?

Also, I notice that the criminals appeared to succeed in leaving without holes in them. Where did the employee's bullets wind up? Looked like he was firing at an angle relative to the aisles. Hope the stacks of maxi pads and alka-seltzer stopped any bullets before they got to customers not in his line of sight. (Obviously, we'd have heard about it if he'd shot a customer, but you see my point).

Statistics aside, there are clearly two philosophies about how to handle this: One is don't escalate, hand over the money, and hope the criminals just want to take it and run. Option two is to be armed and either be obviously armed as a deterrent, or be ready to stop the criminals with force. Maybe the latter are two separate philosophies. Clearly there's an element of roll of the dice; you don't want to play pacifist if you wind up with a psycho who wants to do damange, and you don't want to freak out a nervous character who was after quick money and escape. In any case, in my book it is a Big Deal to carry a gun in a place where you have agreed not to.

the problem most people have is being told they aren't allowed to answer for their own defense with lethal force.

At the end of the day, he took the job knowing the company policy and violated it. Now, if I was working a third shift in a sketchy area, I would most likely violate that policy as well. If I ever felt my life was in danger, I would defend myself regardless, but I wouldn't and shouldn't be surprised when that gets me fired.

If the store was being robbed by a crackhead with no weapon, and I had a gun, but didn't feel legitimately threatened, I'd follow company policy and just hand money over and not be super cashier/pharmacist.

Generally speaking, someone isn't going to point a gun at you unless they're willing to use it. That's always been my assumption, anyway.

flountown wrote: At the end of the day, he took the job knowing the company policy and violated it. Now, if I was working a third shift in a sketchy area, I would most likely violate that policy as well. If I ever felt my life was in danger, I would defend myself regardless, but I wouldn't and shouldn't be surprised when that gets me fired.

This. The company doesn't care whether you live or die, they're just trying to reduce exposure to lawsuits. Besides, steady employment is soooo 20th century anyway..(I'm not being sarcastic when I say that) Protect yourself. Jobs are hard to find, but you have to be alive to find them.

flountown wrote: If the store was being robbed by a crackhead with no weapon, and I had a gun, but didn't feel legitimately threatened, I'd follow company policy and just hand money over and not be super cashier/pharmacist.

And then lock my piece in my car before the cops arrived. Might be able to keep that E36 M3ty job until the next round of layoffs if nobody knows you broke the policy.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Twin_Cam wrote: Dunno about all of you, but I'm not risking a bullet to the face for my employer, even if I do like my job.

Well, you see... he was faced with a bullet to the face anyway. He could have just followed store policy and got a nice mind enema. Instead he got to live and find a new job. In his place... I'd be happy with the outcome and move on to a different job.

Only because he tried to dial 911. Most companies literally just tell you to stand there and obey them, then when they leave call the authorities.

Twin_Cam wrote: Only because he tried to dial 911. Most companies literally just tell you to stand there and obey them, then when they leave call the authorities.

I'm just not that comfortable trusting the bad guy to honor the unwritten "Don't shoot the help in the face" rule. Assuming I was armed, staring at a similar threat, not busy pissing in my own trousers - I'd be pretty damn proud of myself for having the presence of mind to do something about my situation.

So, which large companies allow concealed carry? I would guess very few.

ransom wrote: Seems like the "jerking at the trigger" is being taken to mean attempting to pull it. I'll grant you, I don't know much about guns. But is it really so hard to pull the trigger that dude had time after seeing the jerking to get his own gun out and fire before numbnutz-the-super-criminal actually succeeded in pulling the trigger? Or is it possible that the jerking motion was brandishing rather than attempting to shoot?

I don't care if hes holding it with his foot. Anyone points a gun at me, I will kill them. If he was seen jerking the trigger, I think the victim waited too long.

MitchellC wrote: So, which large companies allow concealed carry? I would guess very few.

The state of Missouri now allows all state employees to carry to work. (That's a new law and I don't know the exact extent.)

I would also like to add, that for possible financial issues the rules are there for a reason. (Customer gets hurt because of a dumb employee with a gun. Result: Lawsuit.) A contract would be a good way to overcome this.

N Sperlo wrote: I would also like to add, that for possible financial issues the rules are there for a reason. (Customer gets hurt because of a dumb employee with a gun. Result: Lawsuit.) A contract would be a good way to overcome this.

At what point would it be acceptable for an employee to pull a gun on someone else? When an assailant pulls a gun? When an assailant pulls a knife? When an assailant pulls something that looks like a gun or a knife?

MitchellC wrote: At what point would it be acceptable for an employee to pull a gun on someone else? When an assailant pulls a gun? When an assailant pulls a knife? When an assailant pulls something that looks like a gun or a knife?

This is why there is absolutely no way that any private institution could really write that into a security contingency. If I was carrying, rules and regulations be damned, if I feel my life or a coworkers is truly threatened, then I would act. But I understand why no corporate policy would ever try to take on a burden of something like that.

MitchellC wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: I would also like to add, that for possible financial issues the rules are there for a reason. (Customer gets hurt because of a dumb employee with a gun. Result: Lawsuit.) A contract would be a good way to overcome this.

At what point would it be acceptable for an employee to pull a gun on someone else? When an assailant pulls a gun? When an assailant pulls a knife? When an assailant pulls something that looks like a gun or a knife?

Allowing an employee to carry a gun opens up a corporation to lawsuits if a mistake happens. You have obviously not payed attention to anything else I have said in this thread. I am a huge advocate of CCW.

The liability would be enormous for sure. The guy ignored corporate policy and got fired. Sorry for him, but in his shoes I would have done the same other than suing for my job back.

Will the next Wallgreens robbery make the news? What if the employee ends up dead. Bet it doesn't.

In reply to Toyman01:

I completely agree. I have to enforce an anti-CCW policy, but there is no way to legally enforce it. I can unfortunately enforce the policy.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Toyman01: I completely agree. I have to enforce an anti-CCW policy, but there is no way to legally enforce it. I can unfortunately enforce the policy.

No one has ever actually bothered me or even asked. Seriously, how does that work?

I have a CCW, which means I don't have to acknowledge the weapon to anyone even if they ask unless they are a sworn police officer. I can just say MYOB. I can legally carry it anywhere (except the courthouse and a few other specific places). So, I guess you can politely ask me to leave based on a suspicion but... that only works with people who willingly comply. It's a little like congratulating a fat woman on her pregnancy... you better be sure she is really pregnant :)

I guess it is like don't ask don't tell?

It's up to the employer or site owner per their policy of firearms carry.

At one industrial employer I could be fired on the spot if I had a firearm in the facility or even in my vehicle in the parking lot... CCW or not , no questions asked.. yur goners.

Another employer unofficially advised carry being the remote location of the facility and working nights alone. I was told by the Super they could get me a permit if I wanted it.. but I'd already had one for years. The site administrator walked in our break room one day, 45 laying on the desk... 'oh, I see Bobby brought the Kimber today'... and went on about lining up the shift.

Now that was one berkeleying cool place to work !

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

No comply, you are under arrest and I search you. If you have a weapon, you get a little fine. Nothing much, but the trespassing and/or resisting (if it happens) will cost you much more. If you resist, its a felony and you cant carry anymore.

In Missouri, Security has full police power within the designated area.

Contractors usually get a free pass. They were allowed by the head of security to leave it in the vehicle.

I am a company borg to a certain point, beyond that point I will defend my personal liberties as I understand them.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: No comply, you are under arrest and I search you. If you have a weapon, you get a little fine. Nothing much, but the trespassing and/or resisting (if it happens) will cost you much more. If you resist, its a felony and you cant carry anymore.

I am speaking of malls and drugstores... not federal jurisdiction like airport terminals and court houses where the CCW specifically does not have access.

How do you know if I am in compliance? If you are not a sworn officer you are not touching me. Even if you are - you are going to need just cause. If I do have a weapon and you find it by fabricating just cause to search me - you can't fine me as I am legally carrying it. That is like you asking me for money and me saying no. You can ask me to leave, fire me (if I work there), or whatever even if you can't confirm I do in fact have one though as it is your (or the people you act on behalf of) property.

I am actually not being combative - I don;t know anything about Missouri but we had an issue here at a local big-box where this exact thing happened involving a customer and a "no weapons" store policy. It basically came down to: "Please don't come back or we shall consider it trespassing" after a bit of saber rattling and some legal action.

N Sperlo wrote:

ransom wrote: Seems like the "jerking at the trigger" is being taken to mean attempting to pull it. I'll grant you, I don't know much about guns. But is it really so hard to pull the trigger that dude had time after seeing the jerking to get his own gun out and fire before numbnutz-the-super-criminal actually succeeded in pulling the trigger? Or is it possible that the jerking motion was brandishing rather than attempting to shoot?

I don't care if hes holding it with his foot. Anyone points a gun at me, I will kill them. If he was seen jerking the trigger, I think the victim waited too long.

That's not the point I was making. This isn't about what to do if you're holding a gun and they're holding a gun. This is about the decision to hold a gun after agreeing not to.

My point is that it's being suggested that the only reason he lived is that he was carrying a gun and that it's a good thing he was able to start shooting first.

My point is that if they guy had been jerking at the trigger with intent to pull it, he would have shot before the employee could get his gun out. It looks to me like it's somewhere between possible and probable that this would have been one of those apparently more common cases where the robbers wanted to grab stuff and leave.

To say that it's the gun that saved him, you have to believe that the gunman was yanking on the trigger and was too inept to actually pull it.

Maybe he had the safety on? Maybe you're right, and he was trying to shoot. I don't know, but I'm not convinced that the gun saved anybody, and I'm not at all convinced that he was justified in carrying it without telling his employer or coworkers.

People seem to be very aggravated about the employer/law taking away his liberty to make the decision about how to handle this situation. But by carrying a weapon, he overrode the decisions of his coworkers to handle this situation via the non-escalation policy. He took away their liberty to make that decision for themselves.