0
nbblood

Walgreens Employee Fired for Use of Concealed Weapon

Recommended Posts

Ok, so burglars attempt to heist a Walgreens. Pharmacist uses his legally carried concealed weapon to thwart their efforts. No customers or employees are hurt. Robbery averted. Potentially saves the pharmacy thousands. Walgreens fires him.

This thread has JohnRich's name all over it. Discuss.

Personally, I'd give the man a medal and a raise.

Here is the story.
Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This thread has JohnRich's name all over it.



why just JR? IMO - seems we should ALL be upset with Walgreen's unless they had an employee policy to keep guns off their property

edit: "Hoven reports that he is not aware of any official Walgreens' policy prohibiting employees from carrying concealed firearms at work. "

so there you go

He should keep his job. I don't see how making a big deal out it one way (medal, promotion, bonus) or the other (fire him) helps the cause of legal ownership more than just noting this was a good and practical example of responsible self defense and moving forward with life like this is normal and acceptable.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Ok, so burglars attempt to heist a Walgreens. Pharmacist uses his legally carried concealed weapon to thwart their efforts. No customers or employees are hurt. Robbery averted. Potentially saves the pharmacy thousands. Walgreens fires him.

This thread has JohnRich's name all over it. Discuss.

Personally, I'd give the man a medal and a raise.

Here is the story.




The pharmacist knew the rules when he was hired, What kind of nation would we be if an employee does not need to follow the rules of his employer? Chaos I tell you, pure and simple.

Walgreens is not stupid, if the pharmacist had been killed or wounded, or customers killed or wounded. there would be a huge lawsuit. He should have done what 99% of police and level headed people say: Don't be a hero and just give them what they want.

No where in the constitution doses it say a well regulated pharmacy shall have the right to ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Ok, so burglars attempt to heist a Walgreens. Pharmacist uses his legally carried concealed weapon to thwart their efforts. No customers or employees are hurt. Robbery averted. Potentially saves the pharmacy thousands. Walgreens fires him.

This thread has JohnRich's name all over it. Discuss.

Personally, I'd give the man a medal and a raise.

Here is the story.




The pharmacist knew the rules when he was hired, What kind of nation would we be if an employee does not need to follow the rules of his employer? Chaos I tell you, pure and simple.

Walgreens is not stupid, if the pharmacist had been killed or wounded, or customers killed or wounded. there would be a huge lawsuit. He should have done what 99% of police and level headed people say: Don't be a hero and just give them what they want.

No where in the constitution doses it say a well regulated pharmacy shall have the right to ......



To which "rules" are you referring? Did you read this:?

Quote

Hoven reports that he is not aware of any official Walgreens' policy prohibiting employees from carrying concealed firearms at work. And after reviewing the security video footage, law enforcement authorities note that Hoven appears to have done nothing illegal.



What exactly are you saying he violated? Your opinion of what he should have done?
Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

This thread has JohnRich's name all over it.



why just JR? IMO - seems we should ALL be upset with Walgreen's unless they had an employee policy to keep guns off their property



Oh, it's not just JR, we just all know how passionately he takes these issues. There are plenty of us that think the same. There are plenty that will argue the other side too. I just mentioned JR because he, perhaps more than any other, is likely to weigh in on this issue. I can bet I'll agree with what he has to say too.
Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>seems we should ALL be upset with Walgreen's unless they had an
>employee policy to keep guns off their property . ..

"Walgreens reacted to the incident by stating that Hoven was in violation of their company policy prohibiting weapons by employees. The pharmacy chain stated that they want the safest possible environment for their customers."

Guy definitely shouldn't be charged with anything. But he did violate company policy.

>just noting this was a good and practical example of responsible self
>defense . . .

He fired three times and missed all three times. Had a round struck a shopper this would be a very different thread. Given that, I can see why Walgreens would not want another employee to fire another three rounds in an occupied store, thief or not. I can also see them deciding to approve some employees for carrying weapons (perhaps after some training) - because then it would give them more say over how such events were handled before they became shooting matches,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

***Hoven reports that he is not aware of any official Walgreens' policy prohibiting employees from carrying concealed firearms at work. And after reviewing the security video footage, law enforcement authorities note that Hoven appears to have done nothing illegal.



What exactly are you saying he violated? Your opinion of what he should have done?



I wonder what the policy of Walgreens is on what an employee is to do during a robbery? I have a funny feeling that no where does it state to pull out a gun and start shooting.

It looks like they do have a policy.

http://theh-p.com/articles/2011/05/19/local_news/4823861.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>"Walgreens reacted to the incident by stating that Hoven was in violation of their company policy prohibiting weapons by employees. The pharmacy chain stated that they want the safest possible environment for their customers."



I didn't see that in the article. Where'dja get it? Although the last sentence is a non-sequitor as in the this case, having the pharacist armed was safer for their customers and any scenario can result in either safer or less safe depending on circumstances.

I think no-gun policies are fine if the property owner wants it that way. No explanation/rationalization adds value since it's subjective anyway.

Edit: however, the pharmacist didn't know of the policy apparently. So the chain has the right to fire him - though, that's a knee jerk response. They should retrain him on the policy, thank him for the results, and then only let him keep his job further if he agrees to follow policy from this point further. Or change the policy and make sure that's publicly announced.

Although, it's pretty nice for burglars, now that Walgreens policy is likely a lot more publicly announced due to this incident. I'm sure they'll appreciate knowing that a 24 hour operation is gun free.

NOT firing him, would have been better PR, and would have kept their policy away from crooks that'll use that info.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Walgreens reacted to the incident by stating that Hoven was in violation of their company policy prohibiting weapons by employees. The pharmacy chain stated that they want the safest possible environment for their customers."



Ok, the source of this quote is "The Redheaded Pharmacist", an online blog which doesn't state how he obtained this claim, whether it was from an interview with a Walgreens official or merely his own speculation on why Walgreens fired him. Just to be clear on how reliable this quote is, it is most likely speculation. At the same time, the former employee is stating he is unaware that any such policy exists and his lawyer is researching a possible wrongful termination lawsuit. I'm guessing, and yes this is my speculation, that the lawyer is looking to find out if such a policy actually exists. But again, the quote you provided is hardly a reliable source in determining whether there actually was such a policy.

I've tried looking for online copies of Walgreen's policies without much luck.....yet.
Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

***Hoven reports that he is not aware of any official Walgreens' policy prohibiting employees from carrying concealed firearms at work. And after reviewing the security video footage, law enforcement authorities note that Hoven appears to have done nothing illegal.



What exactly are you saying he violated? Your opinion of what he should have done?



I wonder what the policy of Walgreens is on what an employee is to do during a robbery? I have a funny feeling that no where does it state to pull out a gun and start shooting.

It looks like they do have a policy.

http://theh-p.com/articles/2011/05/19/local_news/4823861.txt



This source at least cites a Walgreens official. But it is quite vague on what exactly this employee violated. So vague, in fact, that it doesn't say. It merely talks about their reaction to robbery training and that their policies address that. It doesn't say how it addresses that and what this employee violated. Perhaps we'll learn more.

In the meantime, Walgreens can hang signs out on their stores that say, "If you decide to rob us, we'll give you whatever you want."

edit: Oh, and by the way, this source doesn't mention anything about a policy on firearms......nothing. It merely stongly advises against confrontation. Advising against and prohibiting are not the same.
Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Although the last sentence is a non-sequitor as in the this case, having the
>pharacist armed was safer for their customers . . . .

?? Walgreens may well conclude (with some justification) that a pharmacist that fires three rounds in an occupied store - all of which missed their target - presented a danger to their customers.

Or they might decide that the possibility of a future thief shooting a customer is a greater risk, and thus be OK with the risk of an errant pharmacist round hitting a customer. Since it's their chain, both decisions are their right to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Although the last sentence is a non-sequitor as in the this case, having the
>pharacist armed was safer for their customers . . . .

?? Walgreens may well conclude (with some justification) that a pharmacist that fires three rounds in an occupied store - all of which missed their target - presented a danger to their customers.

Or they might decide that the possibility of a future thief shooting a customer is a greater risk, and thus be OK with the risk of an errant pharmacist round hitting a customer. Since it's their chain, both decisions are their right to make.



Now this, I can agree with. Ultimately it is Walgreens' store and they can decide what is appropriate in their own store. The question now, in this particular case, is if an actual policy existed that governed the behavior they deem acceptable or whether they are deciding after the fact. I haven't seen any decisive proof one way or the other. I'm not saying a policy did or did not exist. I'm saying it's unclear.

At the same time, if it were my store, I would want to send the message that I am taking efforts to protect the store and the customers and that the potential for robbers to be facing armed protection very much exists.

Interestingly enough, here's a related story. I'm thinking Mark's Pharmacy wanted to portray the same message.
Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Since it's their chain, both decisions are their right to make.



you agree with my points in a funny way - have a good weekend

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Although the last sentence is a non-sequitor as in the this case, having the
>pharacist armed was safer for their customers . . . .

?? Walgreens may well conclude (with some justification) that a pharmacist that fires three rounds in an occupied store - all of which missed their target - presented a danger to their customers.

Or they might decide that the possibility of a future thief shooting a customer is a greater risk, and thus be OK with the risk of an errant pharmacist round hitting a customer. Since it's their chain, both decisions are their right to make.



You may be overstating this risk a bit, and certainly are presuming a bit about the level of inaccuracy. Without more detail, hard to determine if this is a minor concern or a gigantic one. This was a graveyard event, so the store may well have been effectively empty, and this may have been part of the reasoning by the pharmacist, or not at all.

That said, if this store is covered by at will employment policies, they may well be able to do this. I do wonder who will volunteer to be the next overnight pharmacist there. Having a ready supply of drugs and a published statement that they have no means of self defense is a great threat to their safety. When a drug addict points a gun at you, you can't presume that he just wants drugs and will leave you in peace. I can't fault the employee for that response one bit. He just may need to get a different job. Fortunately for him, his industry is a pretty healthy one. Other late shift workers aren't so lucky, may need that job in spite of the risk.

I noticed this nice bit in the article citing Walmart's response:
Quote


Cohn said the drugstore chain is increasing the number of security cameras at the Napier Avenue store from 12 to 16.



armed drug addicts beware! We've installed 4 more cameras! We also have ski masks in aisle 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Employer say's they have a policy
Employee say's they've never seen one.

Hmm.... now where have I seen that before? Oh, that's right, in just about every single employer's comp case that's ever crossed my desk. Employee always swears blind there's no health and safety policy right up until their employer produces a copy from their files, signed by the very same employee.

Maybe they don't remember. I bet most never read the thing before signing anyway. Some, surely just want to pad out their claim for damages.

Oh yeah... this guy is suing his former employer...

Maybe there is no policy - if there is, Walgreen's is going to be able to put their hands on a document demonstrating it. I don't find it at all surprising that the former employee now claims not to know about it. On the flip side, I wouldn't be that surprised either if the large chain store is feeding nonsense to the media to cover their arse.

I do find it pretty funny (though no less unsurprising) that we're trying to argue here whether the company had a freaking gun policy or not. Face it, you're not going to solve that conundrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guy definitely shouldn't be charged with anything. But he did violate company policy.

He could be in violation of his concealed carry permit... carrying a weapon on property where the company does not want firearms on company property and the property is posted.


Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about the unemployed hero, but I take carrying a weapon pretty seriously...it's a pretty big responsibility. I know, and what he should have known, is that it's a responsibility you have to play by the rules with or it's bad for everyone.

Breaking your employment agreement to carry a gun isn't showing the level of maturity or responsibility I want people with guns to have.

Should Walgreens have a policy against it's employees carrying a weapon on the job? Personally I wouldn't if I was in charge of it, but I'm not, neither was this pharmacist, and it is the company's right to have such a stipulation in place. If the pharmacist felt so strongly against it that he would break the rule, than he should have offered his skills to another, more gun friendly, employer.

Of course that's assuming he's a liar and is claiming to be unaware of the policy falsely, the other scenario is that he was too negligent to be informed of the rules surrounding the privilege of carrying a firearm

Neither being a liar or negligent are traits that a gun owner should be.
Peace, love and hoppiness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't know about the unemployed hero, but I take carrying a weapon pretty seriously...it's a pretty big responsibility. I know, and what he should have known, is that it's a responsibility you have to play by the rules with or it's bad for everyone.

Breaking your employment agreement to carry a gun isn't showing the level of maturity or responsibility I want people with guns to have.

Should Walgreens have a policy against it's employees carrying a weapon on the job? Personally I wouldn't if I was in charge of it, but I'm not, neither was this pharmacist, and it is the company's right to have such a stipulation in place. If the pharmacist felt so strongly against it that he would break the rule, than he should have offered his skills to another, more gun friendly, employer.

Of course that's assuming he's a liar and is claiming to be unaware of the policy falsely, the other scenario is that he was too negligent to be informed of the rules surrounding the privilege of carrying a firearm

Neither being a liar or negligent are traits that a gun owner should be.



What a load of horse shit.

Every big corporation has a no gun policy, it has nothing to do with responsibility, and everything about limiting legal liability.

Everytime a pizzahut employee shots in self defense they get fired. Your life is worth getting fired over. Employers with policies like this don't care if their pharmacist gets shot by a drug addict, and they don't care if their pizza driver gets lured to an abandoned house and killed.
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What a load of horse shit.

Every big corporation has a no gun policy, it has nothing to do with responsibility, and everything about limiting legal liability.

Everytime a pizzahut employee shots in self defense they get fired. Your life is worth getting fired over. Employers with policies like this don't care if their pharmacist gets shot by a drug addict, and they don't care if their pizza driver gets lured to an abandoned house and killed.



Agreed.

The only reason I don't carry to work is I work on a Military base. Other than work I am normally carrying. Someone had also mentioned the possibility of him being in violation of his concealed permit. I doubt that most states take much more than a business or employer just saying no.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rap is to music what etch-a-sketch is to art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

seems like you would have preferred the guy getting shot



Not in the slightest, I never said I supported him being criminally charged, or even having his CCW revoked, but walgreens was completely within their right to shitcan him.
Peace, love and hoppiness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

seems like you would have preferred the guy getting shot



Not in the slightest, I never said I supported him being criminally charged, or even having his CCW revoked, but walgreens was completely within their right to shitcan him.



you called him a liar or negligent. The guy felt he had a need for a self defense weapon and this was proven correct. He may have lost his job for it, but at least he's alive. Bonus is the druggie didn't get anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0