Walgreens Fires Armed Worker.

[GreenStormCloud]

This thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=414440&mesg_id=414440 links to an article about an armed worker at Walgreen's that used his gun against the robbers when everybody was being herded to a back room. When the criminal starts to move the victim to a second crime scene that is NEVER good new for the victim. Being herded to a back room is often a prelude to murder.

Walgreen's has since fired that worker.

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/articles/2011/05/18/local_news/4820927.txt

Walgreens fires armed worker

BENTON TOWNSHIP - A photograph of four children tucked in a thank-you card from a coworker reminds Jeremy Hoven he did the right thing.

But doing "the right thing" cost the night shift pharmacist his job at the Walgreens drugstore at Napier Avenue and M-139. The national pharmacy chain fired Hoven on Monday, eight days after he fired his handgun to foil an armed robbery and a potentially deadly hostage situation at the store.

"In my mind, I can look at myself in the mirror. I can lay my head down in bed and sleep. In my mind, I did what I had to do," said the 36-year-old Twin Cities-area resident.

The two masked gunmen fled after Hoven fired three or four shots from his revolver during the 4:30 a.m. incident May 8, a Sunday.

(MUCH MORE AT LINK)

Walgreens should be boycotted until they rehire them.

[Logical]

1. My company does not allow me to be armed at work. If I choose to....

and pull my gun then they should fire me. Companies have the right to set their rules. If they allowed him to stay then every employee would start carrying guns.

Once again, the 2nd has limitations. This was one of them.

No smoking is also a rule. If someone lights up at their desk I bet they get fired also.

[atreides1]

3. But

Does Walgreens have such a policy?

[Logical]

4. I am assuming they do. If not I agree it should be a warning. And then publish it in the employee...

handbook. n-t

[eqfan592]

5. Can you imagine giving that warning though?

"Ummm, you know how you saved everybody? Yeah, we'd rather you just let the criminals have their way with them. Store policy and all...."

[Logical]

6. Well, I can understand businesses not wanting employees carrying guns.....

while at work. I know I will be labeled anti-gun but that is OK. The employer should have the right to decide they do not want guns at work. Now, that means they might be liable in a mass shooting which is a chance they take. But they would also be liable for accidental shootings if they allowed them.

[eqfan592]

7. Actually, I dont' think they could be held liable...

...for an accidental shooting. If they have a policy of conforming with whatever local laws, and if those local laws include legal CCW, then I'm not really sure how they could be sued for an accidental shooting, as they would have a very clear defense.

Mind you, I wasn't commenting on their right to disallow it, more-so I just found the mental picture of a manager trying to deliver that warning particularly amusing.

[spin]

27. I have no problem with a 24/7 pharmacy not allowing employees to carry concealed ...

if they are willing to provide armed security.

[Logical]

41. So you think every 24 hour business should have armed security or make employees CCW? n-t

[spin]

45. I didn't say "make" employees carry ...

that should obviously be an individual choice. I also would have no problem if the store had a policy that required any employee who wanted to legally carry a concealed firearm while at work to pass an armed security guard course which in most states includes a far more rigorous shooting requirement. If it was my company, I would pay for the course.

Of course, if it was my company, I would provide armed security on the late night shifts. I personally believe that the employees of a company are its greatest asset and their safety would be one of my prime concerns.

Also note that since pharmacies stock drugs they may be more of a target than a convenience store.

If I worked the late night shift at a 24/7 drug store, I would carry despite the company policy.

[Logical]

48. I think some businesses would have trouble with the cost of 24 hour security. And....

it might be hard getting employees to CCW if they didn't want to. Or worse have some idiot CCW who never visits the range at all.
If you have the 5-midnight shift and the midnight to 8am shift have security that would be a lot of money even at $8 an hour.

[spin]

59. I would never require any employee to carry ...

that is a personal decision. I mentioned the idea of requiring passing an armed security guard course if the employee wanted to carry as the shooting requirements are higher than the concealed carry requirements and in Florida it's necessary for an armed guard to requalify on a yearly basis. A positive benefit would be that the employee would be more versed in the law than the average person with a carry license.

I understand that some 24/7 pharmacies have an armed guard in Florida. My daughter mentioned being in one in Jacksonville and she was fairly certain it was a Walgreens. I remember one U-Save grocery store in my neighborhood in the Tampa Bay area that had an armed guard during the day. Also the owners of several stores in the area carried firearms openly, one was the local newspaper and book store where the owner carried a S&W model 642 .38 caliber snub nosed revolver in a belt holster.

[rl6214]

71. I manage restaurants and one I worked at had cops for security

until the closing manager was leaving, about 2am. When the company made me get rid of the cops, I started carrying to work, locking my gun in my office in my briefcase. Company rule was no guns. Rather lose my job than lose my life.

[PavePusher]

39. Except that they're never held liable for those mass shootings.

Legally, a company can forbid me to take steps to protect myself, while at the same time, taking no steps to provide any security whatsoever and there isn't bupkiss they can be held accountable for if/when a crime occurs.

Fuck. That.

[rrneck]

9. Walgreens failed to ensure his safety

and fired him when he did it himself. Typical corporate dick move. Maximize profit, distribute risk, fuck the little guy.

[kestrel91316]

12. What is Walgreens supposed to do to "ensure his safety"??

Have metal detectors and conduct strip searches of every customer as they walk in?

[RamboLiberal]

13. If they want to stay open 24/7 & have pharmacy open as well

How about an armed guard?

[eqfan592]

14. Exactly.

If they are going to have a rule such as this, they should be required to do at least this much to ensure the safety of their employees. Orrrrr they could do the rational thing and simply abide by the laws of their local municipality, and if that municipality allows CCW, let their employees that choose to do so carry while working.

[Abq_Sarah]

68. It does seem stupid

To have a 24 hour pharmacy and no way for employees to protect themselves from armed robbers.

[rrneck]

15. I don't know.

Neither do they. I doubt there's anything they can do. But their legal department along with their PR department doesn't like the idea if their employees carrying guns. Their solution is to push risk down the economic ladder. It's always a little distressing to hear Progressives become apologists for corporations when the little Guy gets screwed.

[kestrel91316]

35. I'm hardly an apologist for corporations, lol. But in this case, what IS the solution?

I don't see how Walgreens could have prevented this.

Somebody else suggested an armed guard at the place because it's open 24/7. Yeah, like THAT is why the crime happened. And an armed guard at the front door won't help when the pharmacy gets robbed - at least the way MY local Walgreens is laid out, lol. The guard wouldn't see or hear a thing if he were at the front door.

[eqfan592]

36. This guy was trying to round people up into the back room.

Unless the security guard was already dead, I have a hard time picturing them not noticing that. But the point ultimately is that if Walgreens is not going to make any effort to ensure the safety of their employees, then they should allow their employees that have CCW permits to carry while on the job.

[rrneck]

37. The presence of an armed guard

is a sizeable deterrent. It's not a perfect solution but it beats asking people to risk their lives for another quarter percent of corporate profit.

"Well golly what's the multi billion dollar corporation supposed to do other than feed their employees to the wolves." is just not an acceptable set of priorities for anyone who considers themselves a progressive.

Where is the pharmicist union? The only solution offered by progressives in this thread so far is the consumer option: "I'm taking my business elsewhere." Walgreens doesn't give a shit about that. They already know how much business they'll lose because of that policy and if they think it'll cost them a little more they'll just fuck their own employees for the difference.

The guy did some seriously heroic shit and got screwed for his trouble and the most we can offer is a "consumer solution" or excoriate him because he stood up and fought injustice. And people wonder why the Democratic party is so ineffectual. It's because Democrats are more willing to get fucked over and see others die than fight for what they believe. Which explains the existence if the Tea Party.

[PavePusher]

42. Ummm, you don't put them at the front door, except for show.

Real security stays covert until needed.

[slackmaster]

57. Walgreens could amend its company policy to allow CCW permit holders to take guns to work

At least on the graveyard shift.

[Euromutt]

113. So you put the guard by the pharmacy

The pharmacy is where the prescription medications are, and that's what robbers are typically after.

[PavePusher]

40. Since that is exactly what it would take to provide security....

Yes.

[krispos42]

64. After 9pm, only have access through a drive-in or walk-up window

made from bulletproof glass. You want something, tell the guy at the window and he'll go fetch it for you. You slip the money into the sliding metal drawer, they take the money and put your change and your item in the drawer and slide it back over to you.

:shrug:


Lots of places do that after a certain time, particularly fast-food places. Prevents late-night armed robberies, and limits the amount of trouble that drunken idiots can cause when they're out getting stupid at 1am. You want a Whopper at 3am? Fine, use the drive up 'cuz the lobby doors are locked.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. So he should have allowed himself and his co-workers to be murdered?

That takes "Take one for the team." to a much higher level. No thanks.

[Logical]

74. I said it was fine but then do not complain about being fired. Pretty simple. n-t

[ileus]

34. F wallgreens, I'll shift my business to CVS.

[Tesha]

52. 'Better check their guns policy first; let us know what you find out! (NT)

[PavePusher]

38. Very likely saving the lives of himself and his co-workers is just a leeeetle bit different....

...than smoking at your desk. If you actually think about it a bit.

It also kinda completely debunks Walgreens' "disarmed for safety" policy.

YMMV.

[atreides1]

2. He did the right thing

[Indydem]

8. Well, he's unemployed.

But he isn't dead, killed by armed thugs showing murderous intent.

Fair trade.

[rrneck]

10. What's fair about it? nt

[slackmaster]

11. Better to be unemployed than dead

Sometimes people have to make difficult choices, but this one would not be one of them.

[DonP]

16. Brown's Fried Chicken and Lane Bryant come to mind

Both local for me and both cases where the criminals got their money then herded the employees/customers to a back room to be executed.

Depending on the mercy of a criminal may not be the best option.

Glad this turned out so much better for all concerned but I wish the pharmacist didn't have to find a new job.

Corporations being run by insurance industry lawyers may not be the best option for public/customer support. Sometimes your brand image isn't about minimizing a vague liability risk. It's about making the brand stand for something. Now we know the Walgreen's brand stands for surrender and unlimited risk for their own employees and for any unfortunate customers in the store at the time of a robbery.

Thanks Walgreens, for making your courageous "Zero Tolerance" stance so clear for all of us that have a choice of drugstores. I think I may have a CVS and Osco in my future.

[Tesha]

17. I once had the opportunity to read the operations manual for a bank.

Their manual made it *PERFECTLY CLEAR* that in the event
of a bank robbery, no one was to do anything heroic. They were
simply to do x, y, and z while complying with the robber's demands.

I'll bet you Walgreens has a very similar policy. And these policies
exist for good reason: they minimize harm both to the employees
and other patrons as well as potential harm to the corporation in
the form of liability lawsuits after the fact.

Tote your guns all you want and dream about how they make you
"safer" but corporations aren't interested in your dreams.

Walgreens was right to fire his ass.

Tesha

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Of course.

And the employee is probably under no delusions that this was unexpected or unreasonable.

I carried against Domino's policy, and had I ever needed to use it, I fully expected to be terminated.


Better to be judged by 12 fired by one, than carried by 6.

[rrneck]

20. I'm not interested in some

CEO's fucking dreams. We don't know what the pharmicists dreams are, but we, as progressives, know perfectly well what corporate America dreams about: fucking everybody in sight for a goddamn dollar.

And you think you can defend that? Really? No wonder progressivism can't get any traction in this country.

[Tesha]

22. Of course. Whatever you say.

I'm glad Walgreens fired his ass.

I'd have done the same.

Tesha

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Interesting that you side with the corporation over the workers' safety.

I've noticed that certain allegedly 'progressive' DUers will go full Ashcroft/Gonzales when the subject is guns.


There's one right now as we speak on another thread defending cops for having arrested someone not breaking the law and

stating repeatedly that said arrestee was wrong to record the event.


I daresay that if the discussion were about almost anything else you would defend the individual over TPTB. Reminds me of the joke

about certain interpretations of the Bill of Rights "They are numbered 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10"....

[Tesha]

46. It is merely your opinion that I'm "siding with the corporation over the workers' safety".

Frankly, I disagree completely with your assessment of
what makes the workers safer. I believe that the bank
had the right ideas that would offer the best assurances
for the safety of their workers and I believe that the
moment an employee pulls out his personal firearm,
the situation is likely to spiral out of control.

We've seen in recent shootings (the Giffords shooting
comes to mind) that even with a number of armed by-
standers, nothing good comes of that.

By comparison, robbers, even armed robbers, probably
don't want to escalate the crime to murder.

Tesha

[PavePusher]

54. There were no "armed bystanders" on scene...

as you very well know.

If you have to resort to lies, you've lost.

[Tesha]

84. Ahh: "argumentation by nit-picking"

As you well know, I wasn't lying, I was drawing an
analogy to a well-known recent situation. If you
feel the analogy doesn't apply, say that, but don't
accuse me of lying.

Tesha

[oneshooter]

86. You weren't lying. You were just "choosing your own facts" out of a box you have. n/t

[PavePusher]

87. You were telling an untruth to fit your agenda.

That is lying.

[GreenStormCloud]

92. Take a look at what you said:

We've seen in recent shootings (the Giffords shooting
comes to mind) that even with a number of armed by-
standers,

You are claiming that the Giffords shooting had armed bystanders present. It did not. You have been corrected on that before. So you made a deliberate false statement, commonly called a lie. People who lie are liars. QED.

[rrneck]

And you would be wrong to do so.

You got nothing but the need for the last word when you get busted.

[Tesha]

47. Actually, as you doubtless realize, I could terminate an "at will" employee for any reason...

...other than for being a member of a protected class.

And so far, pistol-packers aren't a "protected class"
although I'm sure the NRA is working on that as we
speak.

Tesha

[rrneck]

58. A perfect corpotate response.

Hey, get a clue: HUMAN BEINGS ARE A PROTECTED CLASS.

Unfortunately the only protected class you recognize is the corporate protected class.

Nobody with any compassion would take the position you do and you're perfectly willing to push your inhumane ideology with your position in the warm embrace of the same ideology that has wrecked this country. Keep posting, you set a perfect example of how not to think. Nobody here is going to give you a raise though, that's for sure. Take it where you can make another fucking dime.

[lawodevolution]

73. You are correct in 10 years gun owners will be a protected class

[PavePusher]

44. You are glad someone was fired after he likely saved everyone?

Wow.

How kind and understanding of you.

[Tesha]

49. Contrary to opinions stated here, we have *NO IDEA* how this would have turned out...

...if our pistol-packer hadn't "saved everyone".

It's entirely possible that no one would have come
to any harm other than some minor financial harm
down to Walgreens.

Tesha

[PavePusher]

53. Ah, so they should have waited until it was too late....

Yeah, that would work...

[slackmaster]

56. But we DO know exactly how it DID turn out!

It turned out just fine.

...t's entirely possible that no one would have come
to any harm other than some minor financial harm
down to Walgreens.

That is irrelevant.

[eqfan592]

65. Are you willing to bet the lives of the people in that store on...

...the hopefully not too horrible intentions of the armed and dangerous criminal in the store? How about if it was your own skin on the line? Personally, even if I wasn't armed, I'd be damned if I'd let somebody herd me into a back room like a lamb to the slaughter, as was the case several times in the past with similar incidents.

[Straw Man]

79. I say...

I'm glad Walgreens fired his ass.

I'd have done the same.

Is that because your hatred of guns exceeds your concern for the safety of your fellow human beings? Or is there another explanation?

[DonP]

25. No, they minimize liability for the corporation

Nice of you to take the side of the corporation and the liability insurers over the employee that actually saved several lives. How progressive of you.

"just do x, y and z"? Did the employee handbook point out that "Z" may be "lay down on the floor and be shot in the head at point blank range"? I wonder if the Lane Bryant or Brown's Fried Chicken employee handbooks had that same advice in it too?

In Michigan thousands of customers with CCW permits come and go to Walgreen's stores every day. Have you become aware of a rash of shootings in stores from those citizens? Where's all the risk?

This firing is about protecting the corporations from a lawsuit, not about protecting employees and customers. If they die it's a crime that the corporation is not responsible for. But an employee, acting to stop it, is a risk that might make them go to court to argue against a claim by the criminal or their family.

But I respect your philosophy, so I hope no one ever offends you while being led to a secondary crime site by armed criminals by intervening like that "ass" pharmacist did.

I guess the risk of a few lives to keep their liability insurance premiums down is worth it to them, and people like you.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. They were being herded into a back room

That is often a prelude to mass murder. Do you really expect him to allow himself to be murdered for Walgreens bottom line?

[eqfan592]

31. Better to be murdered...

...than to ever use a firearm to defend yourself. :sarcasm:

[Tesha]

50. You watch too much TV. (NT)

[DonP]

60. You don't read enough newspapers.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that these things can easily end in a massacre. Google Lane Bryant murders and Brown's Chicken and get back to us.

[PavePusher]

43. If you do a little reading....

moving people to a back room is very frequently a prelude to shooting everyone in the head.

Once a certain line has been crossed, continuing to behave like cattle only gets you slaughtered.

[Tesha]

51. Put down "Soldier of Fortune"/Guns and Ammo; it's bad for your mental health. (NT)

[PavePusher]

55. Got stats? n/t

[spin]

61. People have been herded into a back room and shot ...

Chicago shooting victims ID'd, killer at large
updated 2/4/2008 7:00:31 PM ET

Greg Zanis of Sugar Grove, Ill., on Sunday puts up five crosses and leaves flowers near the store in Tinley Park, Ill., where five women were shot to death Saturday.

TINLEY PARK, Ill. — Witnesses helped investigators compile a description of the suspect sought in the shooting deaths of five women at a suburban clothing store, according to officials who refused Wednesday to confirm news reports that a sixth victim had survived.

Tinley Park police have said a manager of the Lane Bryant store and four customers were herded into the back room and shot to death in a robbery attempt shortly after opening on Saturday.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22998824/ns/today-today_news/t/chicago-shooting-victims-idd-killer-large/

Armed employees sometimes successfully stop such attacks.

Robbery suspects shot dead by N.C. Pizza Hut worker
September 28, 2010

CHARLOTTE, N.C.

Police say a North Carolina pizza restaurant worker being herded toward a cooler pulled a gun and shot and killed two robbers.

Multiple media outlets reported today that police were searching for a third man who got away from an east Charlotte Pizza Hut restaurant.

Authorities say the robbers burst through the restaurant's front door late Monday as two workers were cleaning up in the back.

Investigators say the suspects ordered the two employees into a walk-in cooler, then started beating one of the men. The other employee pulled a handgun and opened fire.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/09/robbery-suspects-shot-dead-nc-pizza-hut-worker

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Let us not forget the employees of a DC Starbucks:

Note: emphasis added

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/march99/starbucks070897.htm

3 Employees Killed At D.C. Starbucks
By Steve Vogel and Cheryl W. Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 8, 1997; Page A01

Three employees of a Starbucks coffee store near Georgetown were found brutally slain yesterday morning, sending shock waves through a community generally immune from such violence.

The bodies of night manager Mary Caitrin Mahoney, 25, Emory Allen Evans, 25, and Aaron David Goodrich, 18, were found at 5:15 a.m. in a back room of the store at 1810 Wisconsin Ave. NW, in Burleith, just north of Georgetown, police said. An employee arriving for work found the bodies. All three had been shot several times....

...No money was taken from the store, police said...

[DonP]

63. That's just "Soldier of Fortune" and Guns and Ammo propaganda

You can't fool us with phony news clippings, ha!

Everybody knows that if you just do as your told they'll just take the money and leave you alone. Right? Well at least one poster here is sure of that it seems.

The Lane Bryant sign is long gone and so are the crosses but that empty store still haunts everyone that drives by it. All that's left are some memorial funds for scholarships for one woman that was a teacher in one of our nearby schools. Nothing on the killer for a year now.

But thank God, here in Illinois, none of those women were allowed to be armed or just imagine the bloodbath. <Angry sarcasm off>

[Abq_Sarah]

70. And I'm sure most of the people on flights 11, 175, 77 & 93

Figured if they just sat on their hands and complied with the scary men with box cutters, everything would be just fine.

At least they fought back on flight 93 and spared lives in DC.

Here's the thing.. when they start rounding you up and shoving you to a room in the back of the store, you might not survive if you fight back but you probably aren't going to survive if you go along willingly.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

82. No, I've just said my piece.

Your side is now down to "arguing by selective anecdotes"
so there's really no need for me to go on here; I've got better
things to do than dredge up a bunch of anecdotes of my own.

Tesha

[eqfan592]

93. wow, just wow.

You implied that the idea of people being rounded up into a back room to be shot was a Soldier of Fortune magazine fantasy. People countered with stories underscoring that this was no fantasy but in fact the reality in several different incidents. Exactly how is that "down to 'arguing by selective anecdotes'"? You set the stage for the argument, and now you're trying to make it appear that some how we were grasping at straws because we did exactly what was necessary to counter the point you were trying to make. And you can't dredge up anecdotes to counter this, because there IS no counter to reality. The reality is that you implied such things were a fantasy, others proved that they are a reality and have happened several times before. There is no anecdotal evidence in the universe that is going to change the fact that these events DID in fact happen.

[rrneck]

94. The only antecdote that really shows us anything

is your posting history in this thread, from which others may learn. But you will not.

[krispos42]

66. I'm sure that this is because somebody somewhere did a study...

...or more likely, several somebodies did several studies, that showed that complying with the robbers overall was the better choice that being heroic.

But, that assumes robbers that act in a rational, routine manner. Many of them do. They want to get in fast, get the money fast, and get out fast, end of story. They don't know anybody that works there, the workers don't know any of the robbers, it's impersonal and routine, as such things go.


But many of them are not rational, for a variety of reasons. "Herding the employees into a back room" scenarios, if several somebodies did several studies, would probably show that complying with the robbers at that point was worse choice versus being heroic.


I'm not going to put my life on the line for the money from the cash register. Not worth the risk, really. But if the robber is acting whacked out or whatever, this goes from the realm of rational and predictable to the dangerous and unpredictable, and the danger to myself and others becomes very great and immediate.

[palmtree guy]

77. wonder what the sop is

for getting a bullet in the head?

[sylvi]

111. "Walgreens was right to fire his ass."

Wow. Sounds like you're pissed that he was able to defend himself and his co-workers. I can understand you disagreeing with employees being able to carry at work, but your vehemence, give the context of this situation, makes it look like you wish they had been killed instead.

[PavePusher]

122. I think she actually does.

Because the reality completely destroys the myth that mere Citizens are hopelessly inept with firearms and can not possibly protect themselves and, by extension, society. People like her would rather the Citizens be subservient to the government in these matters.

[Euromutt]

112. And such policies make sense, up to a point

And these policies exist for good reason: they minimize harm both to the employees and other patrons as well as potential harm to the corporation in the form of liability lawsuits after the fact.

As long as the robbers do not intend to inflict harm to staff and/or customers as long as they get the money, jewelry, oxycodone or whatever it is they're after, such policies will indeed have that effect. But if, as happened in this case, the robbers start herding staff and any customers into a back room (or any other location out of the public eye)), that assumption no longer becomes tenable because, all too frequently, the robbers do so in order to murder the witnesses (Brown's Chicken massacre, Lane Bryant shooting, the Kentucky Fried Chicken murders in Texas, the murders committed by Paul Reid, the "Fast Food Killer", to name but a few historical examples), and it emphatically does not minimize harm to employees and customers to deprive them of the ability to resist being murdered. (One would think that was obvious, but evidently it needs to be spelled out.)

Note incidentally, that it is partly to make easier to predict robbers' intent that it's a federal felony (abduction) to move anyone in the course of a robbery, even a yard. That's why robbers who know what they're doing order everyone to the floor rather than trying to move them around.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. When the bad guy tries to move you, FIGHT.

Fight with everything you have. Teeth and fingernails if you have to. Dogpile the son of a bitch even if it means eating a bullet for the other people in the room.

When a purported robber starts herding people, bad times are afoot. All too often, there are no survivors. It's the equivalent of the scumbag ramming the cockpit door. You gotta fight.

[gravity556]

80. re:When the bad guy tries to move you, FIGHT.

Exactly. Never let them move you to the scene of the second crime. The idea of total compliance is foolish. Sure, give them the cash from the register if that's what they're after-money isn't worth dying for. But when they start moving everyone into a back room, there are enough incidents like that to be a strong indicator that said shitsucking criminal fuckbag is planning on violence.

And if they're intent on violence, it's much better to fight tooth, nail and gun. If you comply and go into the back room like a good little sheep, the first sign that you're fucked might just be the robber shooting a coworker. Some folks may be just fine and dandy trusting a criminal to exercise restraint, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell that I'm going to sit patiently while my coworkers are being shot one by one.

By the time the cops show up (assuming the worst intent on the robber's part), all they'll be able to do is watch the surveillance tapes and hope they catch whoever did it-not a satisfactory alternative to fighting and possibly saving your own life.

Walgreens was within their rights to fire him, but it's not the best idea to encourage blind obedience to someone nutso enough to rob a pharmacy, and I would much rather get fired than shot... YMMV.

[ileus]

21. night shift pharmacist...he can go find another 156.00/hr job tomorrow.

[Oneka]

23. Walgreens has the authority

To fire this man, according to MN statute, so long as the policy was in place when the incident went down.
I think that it's a horrible move on their part to make such a policy, and enforce it in this case.
I also feel that there are many other pharmacies in the twin cities area that I can do business with.


Subd. 18.Employers; public colleges and universities. (a) An employer, whether public or private, may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment. Employment related civil sanctions may be invoked for a violation.

[spin]

26. I emailed Walgreens corporate headquarters ...

and suggested that if they were unwilling to provide armed security on the late night shifts, they should allow the employees to carry licensed concealed firearms if it is legal in their area.

My daughter mentioned that some 24/7 pharmacies do have armed security in Jacksonville Florida and she believed the store where she witnessed this was a Walgreens.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. I emailed them too. N/T

[DWC]

33. I look forward to a headline

WALLGREEN'S FIRES EMPLOY FOR SAVING LIVES. CONSUMERS FIRE WALLGREEN'S

Works for me.

Semper Fi,

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

69. Its is at Walgreens discretion to keep this person hired. It was a benighted decision nevertheless

I am disappointed that Walgreens would fire him for that.

[ileus]

75. strange that wallgreens would rather the workers be dead, than a story of SD success.

[PavePusher]

76. You'd think they could turn it into some really positive publicity for themselves...

...but, no, a good opportunity wasted by blind faith in ignorance and stupidity.

Fuck 'em, I'm boycotting.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. Here is Walgreens' responce to my email.

Thank you for taking your time to contact our Corporate Offices. We appreciate hearing from our customers and value all comments received.


Our policies in this area are designed to maintain the maximum safety of

our customers and employees.Store employees receive comprehensive

training on our company’s robbery procedures and how to react and

respond to a potential robbery situation. In past incidents, employees

have told us they’ve found this training effective.These policies and

training programs are endorsed by law enforcement, which strongly

advises against confrontation of crime suspects.Compliance is safer than

confrontation. Through this practice, we have been able to maintain an

exemplary record of safety.We’ve made significant investments in

security technology in recent years, including increasing the number of

digital surveillance cameras at our stores.With upgrades to security

technology, we are able to provide police with high-resolution

photographs and video of crime suspects.We continue to invest in

state-of-the-art security measures and high-definition surveillance

equipment and hope that the apprehension of robbery suspects in the

Benton Harbor area will prevent future crimes. Thank you for contacting

Walgreens to share your comments.



Again, thank you for contacting our corporate office. We truly appreciate you taking the time to share your comments.

So they expect their employees to be like sheep and go to the back room for a bullet in the head.



Sincerely,

[LAGC]

81. Disgusting.

The truth is, Walgreens is just more afraid of being sued by a poor injured robber during his "occupational hazard" than losing business.

I think a boycott is in order, indeed.

[Tesha]

83. It's amazing how afraid gun owners are.

You seem to think that every confrontation must end with
someone dying (or at least someone getting shot).

Walgreens and years of experience by many people disagree
with that idea. In fact, even armed robbers often don't want to
escalate to the point of actually using violence.

Tesha

[gravity556]

85. You have quite a bit of faith in the benevolent grace of criminals. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

91. When an armed robber is herding you to a back room, YOUR LIFE IS IN SERIOUS DANGER.

If all he wants is the cash, give it to him. It isn't worth a fight over the company's money. Stay calm and help him be calm.

But if he tells you to go to a back room and follows you, FIGHT! Moving the victim to a secluded place is NOT being done for the good of the victim. Such movement is often so you can be killed out of sight.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Problem is, you as the victim, can never know until it's too late, if that threat of violence is a b

luff or not.

It's a very simple concept, I hope you can grasp it:

No one has the right to threaten me with violence, no one has the right to mortgage my life for some criminal purpose. Do so at your peril, because I value my life, and I will take steps to protect it.

Giving you something that is either not mine to give, or not yours to take, to buy back my safety, or my life, is not an option. Period.


And no, resistance does not require that someone must die or be shot. Nice projection.

[aikoaiko]

96. Two armed criminals who could have left instead move you to a back room...

...and you want them to acquiesce. Luck and the good will of criminals is no way save your life.

You don't know much about second crime scene risks.

[rrneck]

98. If all they want is the cash they will take it and go.

If they stay long enough to herd everyone into the back it's not likely to play a hand of Gin Rummy.

What's disturbing is your faith in disembodied research presented to you via a corporate memo instead of your own common sense. And you would advocate public policy based that process. That's the kind if thinking that's sold us down the river to those parasites. You call gun owners afraid and you're too afraid to think for yourself.

[PavePusher]

88. How nice...

they'll be able to record the last mooments of your life in "high-resolution photographs and video". This must be a great comfort to them....

[slackmaster]

90. I bought a blood pressure cuff at Walgreens two weeks ago

That's the last time I'll ever set foot in one, until they change their policy to a more rational one.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. My dad kicked the shit out of a bank robber once.

The police much appreciated it, off-record. Robber is still in jail, to the best of my knowledge.

However, officially, they admonished my dad not to interfere, and they refused to release the security tapes, as they may encourage others to do the same.

So I believe Walgreens here, they have been implored by the Police themselves, not to interfere.



You know, just like in the 70's, when the hijackings of airplanes started, and the mantra was "just be calm, and this will all be over soon"? That worked real well till people started using commercial aircraft as cruise missiles.

[Hoyt]

99. I assume your dad was unarmed. Good for him "kicking ass." Preferable to bullets flying.

Many bank robberies go down without robbers shooting.

But, when some cowboy pulls his gun -- much more likely a shootout will ensue.

Yea, I know, many here will say, "hell, I ain't wasting an opportunity to blast someone."

[rrneck]

100. Hell, you ain't wasting an opportunity to insult someone. nt

[eqfan592]

101. Actually, I doubt anybody here will say that.

But hey, never pass up an opportunity to demonize those you disagree with, right Hoyt?

[AtheistCrusader]

104. How's that fantasy land working out for you?

Just can't go 5 minutes without whipping out that meme huh? About as often as you pretend people with CPL's whip out their guns.

[Hoyt]

107. Maybe you could learn something from your dad. Then pass it on to other carriers here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. For once, I agree with you: Fight back with *any* means at your disposal...

....even if others who weren't there to protect you disapprove.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. My dad was laid up, badly injured for two weeks as a result.

Robber fired two shots as well, but no one was hit. Could have gone a lot worse.

I would probably respond if unarmed as well, but armed, I would have a better chance of stopping the robber.
The mode of resistance is your choice, choose well, execute well.

[gravity556]

124. Hoyt, I don't think I've ever met a law abiding gun owner who

would ever even think "hell, I ain't wasting an opportunity to blast someone" in a situation like that. The folks who are looking for any excuse to blast someone tend to be the anti-social violent criminals who rob people at gun point and then start herding them into a back room.

But hey, why let facts spoil your fun, right? Much easier to argue emotion and paint anyone who carries a gun for their own protection as some kind of "cowboy"

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DWC]

89. Freedom of Choice

Walgreens is a private company and free to hire and fire as they please. Further, they are (or should be) free to require any terms of employment they chose. If, in the employer's opinion, the potential employee fails to meet those terms, no matter how "unfair" or discriminatory they may be, employment may not be offered without explanation.

Individuals seeking employment are free to accept, reject, or negotiate any terms of employment with any potential employer. If the individual is unwilling to meet the required terms of employment, the individual may reject employment offered without explanation.

Consumers are free to do business with or not do business with any company or individual they chose without explanation.

Employers are free to choose.
Employees are free to choose.
Consumers are free to choose.

As a consumer, at this point in time I choose not to do business with Walgreens. No explanation is required.

Semper Fi,

[Tesha]

102. Just make sure you check the gun policy/employee response to robbery policy...

...at all of your alternative providers.

Odds are it's the same as Walgreens. Even at
"Mr. Gower's" little pharmacy in Bedford Falls.

Tesha

[eqfan592]

103. Sadly, you are likely correct.

Yet that does not equate to all other businesses handling this specific situation in the exact same manner. As it stands right now, Walgreens has stepped in it big time in the eyes of a lot of people, and they are going to have to deal with the consequences of that.

[Tesha]

105. The sad part, to me, is that the pro-gun organizations will doubtless trumpet this loudly...

...while most of the folks who would approve of Walgreen's
actions will never hear about this.

Tesha

[gejohnston]

108. Oh I don't know

about that, but both the corporate and "progressive" media will take Brady BS at face value and spin it out of context like Ohio's guns in bars and the 90 percent myth. I do know this, when the robber starts herding people to the back room there are only two possibilities: 1)the robber does not realize he is committing a federal crime by kidnapping, or 2) leave no witnesses. My moral code is simply that if one has the means to aide another and does not, he is morally an accomplice. Of course that does not apply to a corporation's money. The robber takes the money and leaves, I'll be a good witness for the police. Endanger a human, or start ordering people to the back room, I am going to assume number two.

In context, I can not approve Walgreen's actions.

[Kolesar]

115. Right out of the NRA talking points

both the corporate and "progressive" media will take Brady BS at face value and spin it out of context like Ohio's guns in bars and the 90 percent myth. I

[eqfan592]

117. Even the NRA gets it right every now and then.

You and others seem to be of this mindset that just because you disagree with somebody on many political issues that they are incapable of EVER being correct about ANYTHING. It is a very dangerous and closed minded position to hold.

Just look at Rachel Maddow and her parroting of firearm information that is just flat out wrong. She holds the ears of many progressives, and they listen to what she says, often without bothering to do their own fact checking. So when she says something that is demonstrably incorrect about firearms, it does nothing but cloud the issue even further, and for progressives like myself who are pushing to not only protect our civil liberties but also to move the progressive movement away from an issue that has done NOTHING but cost us extensive political capital with almost nothing to show for it, such disinformation from somebody that so many see as very credible (because she IS generally very credible) is both frustrating and damaging to the movement as a whole. It's a double edged sword because not only does it make our jobs that much more difficult, but it causes moderates who know a thing or two about firearms to then question every thing she says (if she is so wrong about this, is she just as wrong about everything else?).

So NRA talking point or not, it is an accurate assessment of what happens.

[Paladin]

118. And Just How Often Do You Disagree With NRA Policy?

Yeah, that's what I thought.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. What difference does it make? It's possible to right about one thing and wrong about another.

Just look at Maddow's sidekick, Meaghan McCain.

Stump-ignorant in regards to guns, but she certainly pegged Rick Santorum as the idiot he is...

[PavePusher]

121. Wow, dodge the point (and then make assumptions) much? n/t

[gejohnston]

123. your blind claim of everything contrary to your view

is NRA talking points, is Brady talking points. One correction. The only real progressive media that is not corporate, sorry MSN NBC, is Pacifica.
Prove anything I said in inaccurate, and how were those items reported in context?

[Tejas]

119. So................is your father/brother in prison for armed robbery?

Just wondering, because for the life of me I can't fathom your callous disregard for the safety of those people that day in Walgreens.

[DWC]

106. Excellent point. I will. n/t

[PavePusher]

116. Some more info, from the person fired:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/05/saying-no-to-self-protection.html#comment-form

"Hoven said his first hint something was wrong was seeing a manager run into a storeroom on the building's west side. Seconds later he saw a man brandishing a handgun, guiding the second manager around the shelf at the northeast corner.

"The first thing I tried to do was dial 911 but I couldn't get it done," Hoven said. "Within seconds he was over the counter. And I'm looking at the wrong end of a 9-millimeter (gun). He was holding it gangster-style" - sideways.

The robber had jumped over the counter, leaving the manager in the aisle. The robber came within a few feet of Hoven."


More at link. Also continues to disprove the myth that a criminal with a presented weapon will always win, and that you can always just dial 9-1-1.