Walgreens Employee Fired for Use of Concealed Weapon

[BrokenR1 0]

Quote

He is a liar or negligent, but that doesn't mean I wish him harm. That's just silly.

Or he is neither.

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

[AndyBoyd 0]

"Walgreens is not stupid, if the pharmacist had been killed or wounded, or customers killed or wounded. there would be a huge lawsuit."



As an attorney, I can tell you this is the answer plain and simple. Corporations will not alllow their employees to start shooting, even when it may be justified, because of the legal liability. I agree with a lot of the posters, it looks like this guy knew what he was doing with his firearm and defended himself successfully. But if the next Walgreens employee hits an innocent customer, it costs the company millions. If I were a Walgreens stockholder or officer, I would fully support the policy they have. Now, I have no problem with guns or self-defense. And I know this kind of thing grinds people's gears. But a corporation like Walgreens simply cannot have their employees shooting at people. The guy should have called the cops.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"Walgreens is not stupid, if the pharmacist had been killed or wounded, or customers killed or wounded. there would be a huge lawsuit."



As an attorney, I can tell you this is the answer plain and simple. Corporations will not alllow their employees to start shooting, even when it may be justified, because of the legal liability. I agree with a lot of the posters, it looks like this guy knew what he was doing with his firearm and defended himself successfully. But if the next Walgreens employee hits an innocent customer, it costs the company millions. If I were a Walgreens stockholder or officer, I would fully support the policy they have. Now, I have no problem with guns or self-defense. And I know this kind of thing grinds people's gears. But a corporation like Walgreens simply cannot have their employees shooting at people. The guy should have called the cops.

I know that in several states, a criminal cannot sue over injuries suffered due to their victim defending themself. Does anyone know of cases where a bystander was injured and successfully sued for damages?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[david3 0]

Quote

I know that in several states, a criminal cannot sue over injuries suffered due to their victim defending themself. Does anyone know of cases where a bystander was injured and successfully sued for damages?

I can’t find the outcome of this suit (probably because it isn’t settled yet) but here is a case. It doesn’t have to be successful to cost the company money.

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bystander-shot-in-attempted-store-robbery-sues-shop-owner.html

[wsd 0]

For me personally, being fired is far better than being buried.

For many people they would rather be shot dead than to do something outside of company policy.

Shooting is not always the answer but yet sometimes it is the answer.

If you need to draw and defend yourself that includes shooting the stop the threat.

That is not done by brandishing or shooting to scare, it is shooting to incapacitate by whatever means necessary.

Ill take being fired for refusing to die.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I know that in several states, a criminal cannot sue over injuries suffered due to their victim defending themself. Does anyone know of cases where a bystander was injured and successfully sued for damages?

I can’t find the outcome of this suit (probably because it isn’t settled yet) but here is a case. It doesn’t have to be successful to cost the company money.

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bystander-shot-in-attempted-store-robbery-sues-shop-owner.html

I'm aware that the case doesn't have to be successful to cost a company money.

Thanks for the link - Cook Country Circuit Court doesn't list the case - wonder if it was dismissed?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wsd 0]

The excessive force statement might fall on it's face.

Yeah he is probably entitled to compensation but the claim seems off.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I know that in several states, a criminal cannot sue over injuries suffered due to their victim defending themself. Does anyone know of cases where a bystander was injured and successfully sued for damages?

I can’t find the outcome of this suit (probably because it isn’t settled yet) but here is a case. It doesn’t have to be successful to cost the company money.

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bystander-shot-in-attempted-store-robbery-sues-shop-owner.html

I'm aware that the case doesn't have to be successful to cost a company money.

Thanks for the link - Cook Country Circuit Court doesn't list the case - wonder if it was dismissed?

It's hard to do a good search to answer your inquiry, because (a) most injury lawsuits are in the state courts, (b) most state court lawsuits don't hit the fact-searchable legal databases (like Westlaw and Lexis) unless they reach the appellate courts, and (c) only a small minority of lawsuits ever reach the appellate courts and have fact-searchable court opinions written about them. So you're usually relegated to doing Google searches of news stories, and you know how hit-and-miss that can be.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

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.

Texas requires a large sign be posted (with very specific wording in contrasting colors and block letters), written personal notification, or verbal notification from someone reasonably considered a representative.

Some states only require the dinky "no guns" red slashed circle sign.

--
Rob

[BrokenR1 0]

Quote

Texas requires a large sign be posted (with very specific wording in contrasting colors and block letters), written personal notification, or verbal notification from someone reasonably considered a representative.

Some states only require the dinky "no guns" red slashed circle sign.

Yep,

Quote

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code, on property of another without effective
consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the
owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the
owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section
46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.

But it's funny that Texas says a card or document with no size or color requirements, then says or the same above but also in two languages, a certain size, and contrasting colors.

I do think most states cannot limit it as easily as a sign though. The few I've looked up have not been that easy.

Where was this Walgreens also? Was it in Texas?

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

[billvon 2,990]

>If you need to draw and defend yourself that includes shooting the stop
>the threat. That is not done by brandishing or shooting to scare, it is
>shooting to incapacitate by whatever means necessary.

If that's the case this guy failed miserably.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>If you need to draw and defend yourself that includes shooting the stop
>the threat. That is not done by brandishing or shooting to scare, it is
>shooting to incapacitate by whatever means necessary.

If that's the case this guy failed miserably.

failing miserably is a lot worse than what happened here, where no good guys got hurt, and the attempted robbery was unsuccessful.

[billvon 2,990]

>failing miserably is a lot worse than what happened here . . .

Agreed. Which is why I think his statement is nonsense.

[tkhayes 348]

no brainer, the clerk could have drawn customers and other employees into a gun battle.

You're fired.

THe Gimli Glider pilot was touted as a hero because he dead-sticked a 767 into an old airport int he 80's with no power. bravo.

Then he was fired because he was ultimately responsible for the airplane running out of fuel.

If the Walgreen's clerk had real firearm credentials (other than a CCW), the employer was aware of the gun, he/she carried a multi-million dollar liability insurance policy to cover his 'acts during the use of said weapon(s)", then maybe Walgreen's would have seen it differently.

All the risk of his actions were borne by Walgreen's.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

All the risk of his actions were borne by Walgreen's.

no, his life was still at risk in the situation.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Quote

All the risk of his actions were borne by Walgreen's.

no, his life was still at risk in the situation.

alright - All of the LIABILIY risk of his actions was borne by Walgreen's.

I do not disagree with your point - his life was probably in danger. Walgreen's can still fire him - the issues are not actually related.

If I am in a store while it is being robbed, they might have a right to defend themselves, but do I have a right to ask that no one starts a fucking shoot-out? I am not interested in going into a store and wondering if the clerks are armed and willing to use them.

Now if the store posts a sign out front and says "Hey, our clerks are armed and will shoot you if you try to rob us", then the robbers have a choice and so do I as a customer.

[kelpdiver 2]

I do appreciate their legal risks in the situation.

That said, you're also at risk as a customer from armed robbers. A strong deterrence against such activity does benefit you. Perhaps not as much as preventing a two way shootout.

[tkhayes 348]

It is really only a 'strong deterrent' if the person with the gun is highly trained and has the credentials and experience, as well as the 'upper hand' in any given situation.

Me, as a bystander, would choose to NOT start that situation, or be involved in it.

1. i am in the store, the robbers come in and start shooting first, the clerk shoots them dead, I am alive. I would be grateful and I would be pissed off at the same time that he shot the fucking place up and I could have been killed.

2. I am in the store and the robbers come in, and the clerk starts shooting and they leave, no one is shot, I would probably be pissed off that the clerk started a shootout with me there.

3. I am in the store, robbers come in and execute me - oh well, life is a cunt sometimes. Not that I would want nor accept that - but I do not wander around basing my life on the possibility of that happening since the odds are so fucking slim, - (I would probaby more like get colon cancer than ever have that happen to me.)

4. Any number of other scenarios.....

bottom line, the guy takes a chance 'cause his life is in danger. fine. he has to accept the consequences of his actions. I bring a gun to work, I might get fired.

I have rights too. Post the big sign outside warning shoppers that there are guns inside and everyone gets to choose. I choose a different store, and I bet the robbers do as well.

But I don't go hang out at the liquor store at 1am on a Saturday night, so again, the odds of anything like that ever happening in my lifetime are slim. I will spend my time on education, having fun with my friends, living the dream and not much time worrying about getting shot.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It is really only a 'strong deterrent' if the person with the gun is highly trained and has the credentials and experience, as well as the 'upper hand' in any given situation.

it's a deterrent if the addicts think there's a better place to go. In contrast, right now, Walgreens is very publicly stating that there is nothing but 16 cameras stopping bad guys from trying this. More like a dinner bell to me.

Quote

1. i am in the store, the robbers come in and start shooting first, the clerk shoots them dead, I am alive. I would be grateful and I would be pissed off at the same time that he shot the fucking place up and I could have been killed.

2. I am in the store and the robbers come in, and the clerk starts shooting and they leave, no one is shot, I would probably be pissed off that the clerk started a shootout with me there.

3. I am in the store, robbers come in and execute me - oh well, life is a cunt sometimes. Not that I would want nor accept that - but I do not wander around basing my life on the possibility of that happening since the odds are so fucking slim, - (I would probaby more like get colon cancer than ever have that happen to me.)

Customers getting accidentally shot by the clerk is pretty rare as well. Rarer, I believe, than getting shot by a hoodlum, either intentionally or due to poor aim.

Quote

But I don't go hang out at the liquor store at 1am on a Saturday night, so again, the odds of anything like that ever happening in my lifetime are slim. I will spend my time on education, having fun with my friends, living the dream and not much time worrying about getting shot.

That pharmacist spent a substantial number of years in education. Still see a lack of empathy on your part.

[tkhayes 348]

my empathy has nothing to do with it. The right wing, in this dropzone forums and others, constantly talks about personal responsibility and the rights of corporations to do whatever the hell they want. And if you don't like it, then go start your own corporation and do it differently.

I do not have empathy for him. bully for him - he shot a gun and chased away some robbers. That cost him his job. Too bad. Walgreen's decided that and that is fine with me. If the guy wants to work at a drugstore where you can carry guns, then he is free to start one.

He should be 'grateful' that his actions worked and he possibly saved his life. Instead he will probably sue Walgreen's, which does nothing for anyone and instead turns him into a prick (if he does that).

Walgreen's can have whatever policy (or not) that they want. If I was the Walgreen's store, I bet I would be firing him as well. And I bet Walgreen's insurance policy just doubled. They may only mitigate that by firing him.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's hard to do a good search to answer your inquiry, because (a) most injury lawsuits are in the state courts, (b) most state court lawsuits don't hit the fact-searchable legal databases (like Westlaw and Lexis) unless they reach the appellate courts, and (c) only a small minority of lawsuits ever reach the appellate courts and have fact-searchable court opinions written about them. So you're usually relegated to doing Google searches of news stories, and you know how hit-and-miss that can be.

According to the article, the suit was filed in the Cook County Court. The court has a case search page - there's no record of the case.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

It sounds like giving the robber what he wanted might have been a better choice. From the article (which is very short on detail) it sounds like the robber was already behind the counter with his gun drawn. Giving him the cash/drugs/whatever would still leave the employee the option of drawing his own weapon if that didn't satisfy the robber.

I heard a story once that discussed robbbery training at Target. The employees are given the scenario of a man demanding $10,000 and threatening violence if he isn't given the money. The trainer asks the new employees how long they think it will take Target to make that $10,000 profit back. The employees guess anywhere from ten seconds to ten minutes or so. The answer was well under one second. The lesson of the story was to just give the robber what they want, usually they will take it and run, and the impact to a store like Target (or Walgreens) is trivial.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The lesson of the story was to just give the robber what they want, usually they will take it and run, and the impact to a store like Target (or Walgreens) is trivial.

ignoring the fact that crime begets crime, and if a Target is getting knocked off every day, people will stop shopping there. And thanks to 3 strikes laws, it's not prudent to assume the robber is satisfied with the money.

[DanG 1]

Quote

ignoring the fact that crime begets crime, and if a Target is getting knocked off every day, people will stop shopping there. And thanks to 3 strikes laws, it's not prudent to assume the robber is satisfied with the money.

Tell that to Target. Believe it or not, I didn't write their policy.

Can you point to any major store with a policy that encourages employees to forcably resist robbery attempts? You can't, because there isn't one. And yet department stores are not getting knocked over every day. Hmmm.

I'm not sure what three strike laws have to do with anything. If I walk into Target and say, "Give me $10,000 or I'll kill someone," why would I not be happy when they hand over $10,000? What would killing someone gain me?

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm not sure what three strike laws have to do with anything. If I walk into Target and say, "Give me $10,000 or I'll kill someone," why would I not be happy when they hand over $10,000? What would killing someone gain me?

???

it really needs to be spelled out? If getting caught for robbery gets you a life sentence anyway, there's nothing to lose, and much to gain, by killing witnesses.