Walgreens Employee Fired for Use of Concealed Weapon

[scruffy 0]

Quote

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.

Yeah man, it seems like every day we are hearing about another department store shooting spree...

Peace, love and hoppiness

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

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.

Oh, sorry; I should have clarified that my post was really more in answer to/context of the inquiry in your earlier post, "Does anyone know of cases where a bystander was injured and successfully sued for damages?"

[DanG 1]

Quote

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.

Yeah, it does need to be spelled out, since Walgreen's advertising that it has security cameras everywhere was dismissed as useless. If the only motivation for killing people were removing witnesses, it looks like the security camera idea would be pretty effective at reducing violence.

- Dan G

[normiss 800]

Gimli was the result of the stoopid metric system....


He also wasn't fired.

[rhaig 0]

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.

Just shop at places that post the appropriate sign for their state to disallow concealed carry on the premises, and you won't have to be pissed off that someone did something that might have saved your life.

clerk made his choice, got fired. Has said he'd make the same choice again.

company makes their choice, posts the sign that legally keeps employees and customers from carrying concealed on the premises.

you make your choice, shop where there won't be anyone legally armed on the premises.

sounds good to me.

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

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.

Yeah man, it seems like every day we are hearing about another department store shooting spree...

We're not talking about department store shooting sprees during daytime hours. Instead we're talking about the poor late shift guys, the ones who didn't bother to get educated enough so they could get a better job. Thus, not widely covered on the news, and they get shot after the 11pm news anyhow.


http://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+store+clerks+are+shot+in+robberies%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

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.

Yeah, it does need to be spelled out, since Walgreen's advertising that it has security cameras everywhere was dismissed as useless. If the only motivation for killing people were removing witnesses, it looks like the security camera idea would be pretty effective at reducing violence.

if only they could testify in court. Cameras are a poor substitute, and without a fortunate positioning, won't do well with hats, masks, etc.

but if you prefer- let's say that 3 strikes laws remove any disincentive to shoot. It's not a choice of 5-10 or life, it's life, period.

[DanG 1]

I'm not a lifelong criminal or drug addict, so I'm not well versed in the criminal mindset, but if I were going into that business, I would rely on the statistic that robberies are solved much less frequently than murders. In other words, killing the attendant is probably going to get you a lot more police attention than stealing from the register. You're right that the punishment might be the same, but the likelihood of getting caught is significantly lower.

Either way, there must be a reason why stores (and police) do not encourage employees to resist armed robbers.

- Dan G

[DougH 270]

This put yourself in the perps shoes stuff is hilarious. I like how you a reasoning this out, as if those commiting armed robbery are usuallyindividuals with a high capacity for reasoning.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[scruffy 0]

Quote

Either way, there must be a reason why stores (and police) do not encourage employees to resist armed robbers.

For stores it's the huge legal liability of letting people turn their stores into the OK Corral

For police it's pretty self evident, the only person who presented an active threat to bystanders in this situation was the pharmacist, that is unless the would be robbers were firing back which doesn't seem to be the case.

I'll say it again that I do carry a gun, but when I carry it the liability is mine and mine alone. If the pharmacist was carrying on his own time that would be his business, but Walgreens wouldn't allow him to do it while he was working for them because then the liability shifts to them. That's 100% their decision, and they were right to make sanctions on him when he proved to be more trouble than his services were worth.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Either way, there must be a reason why stores (and police) do not encourage employees to resist armed robbers.

7-11 clerks are easily replaced.

Less flippantly - until recently, robbers were expected to rob and go. Just as hijackers were expected to land the plane in Cuba. Neither is as true anymore, but long standing beliefs hold. The CCW was a lot less common 20 years ago than it is now. Now most states allow for it.

[billvon 2,991]

>and if a Target is getting knocked off every day, people will stop shopping there.

And if clerks are firing at crooks in occupied stores, and missing, people will stop shopping there as well. (Perhaps permanently.)

Which is worse? Walgreens makes that call.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>and if a Target is getting knocked off every day, people will stop shopping there.

And if clerks are firing at crooks in occupied stores, and missing, people will stop shopping there as well. (Perhaps permanently.)

Which is worse? Walgreens makes that call.

yes, they do.

But your situations aren't the same. Successful robberies spawn more robberies. An addict that needs a fix and succeeded before will go back again. But getting shot at tells you to go rob a different place. Or maybe to find a safer criminal activity.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Oh, sorry; I should have clarified that my post was really more in answer to/context of the inquiry in your earlier post, "Does anyone know of cases where a bystander was injured and successfully sued for damages?"

Ah, ok... thanks for the info.

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

[billvon 2,991]

>But your situations aren't the same.

Definitely agreed.

>Successful robberies spawn more robberies.

And customers with gunshot wounds spawn lawsuits and bigtime bad press. Which is worse? Again, Walgreens makes the call.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But your situations aren't the same. Successful robberies spawn more robberies. An addict that needs a fix and succeeded before will go back again. But getting shot at tells you to go rob a different place. Or maybe to find a safer criminal activity.

1 robbery, max take probably $10,000.

1 shot bystander due to employee gun use, $millions in direct costs, more $$ lost due to decline in shoppers.

Takes 100 $10,000 robberies to get to $1,000,000. There simply aren't enough robberies to make the math work in favour of allowing employees to carry.

Secondly, I don't think your "slippery slope theory" has any merit in this situation.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But your situations aren't the same. Successful robberies spawn more robberies. An addict that needs a fix and succeeded before will go back again. But getting shot at tells you to go rob a different place. Or maybe to find a safer criminal activity.

1 robbery, max take probably $10,000.

1 shot bystander due to employee gun use, $millions in direct costs, more $$ lost due to decline in shoppers.

Takes 100 $10,000 robberies to get to $1,000,000. There simply aren't enough robberies to make the math work in favour of allowing employees to carry.

Secondly, I don't think your "slippery slope theory" has any merit in this situation.

Do I care? You just made up facts out of thin air to support your claims.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You just made up facts out of thin air to support your claims.

No, the fact is correct, the numbers were made up to show the basic premise.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You just made up facts out of thin air to support your claims.

No, the fact is correct, the numbers were made up to show the basic premise.

Yes, I'm laughing out loud at you right now.

[david3 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You just made up facts out of thin air to support your claims.

No, the fact is correct, the numbers were made up to show the basic premise.

Yes, I'm laughing out loud at you right now.

Are you saying it is cheaper to shoot bystanders than to lose the money in the robbery?

.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You just made up facts out of thin air to support your claims.

No, the fact is correct, the numbers were made up to show the basic premise.

Yes, I'm laughing out loud at you right now.

Are you saying it is cheaper to shoot bystanders than to lose the money in the robbery?

.

No, quite the opposite

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yes, I'm laughing out loud at you right now.

So you think the occasional shopper shot by an employee would be less expensive that the current loss to robberies?

I think that position would indeed be rather laughable.

[david3 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You just made up facts out of thin air to support your claims.

No, the fact is correct, the numbers were made up to show the basic premise.

Yes, I'm laughing out loud at you right now.

Are you saying it is cheaper to shoot bystanders than to lose the money in the robbery?

.

No, quite the opposite

I know what you are saying. I was asking kelpdiver.

.

[kelpdiver 2]

I'm laughing at the obvious - a sentence that has "fact" and "made up" so close to each other.

It's pointless to debate with someone that happily makes up reality.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Then take the numbers out and explain to me how the current level of robberies at Walgreens costs the company more than a couple of customers getting shot by an employee if the company allowed employees to carry.