Walgreens Employee Fired for Use of Concealed Weapon

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

you start with a premise that customers will be shot. That's not a given. There is a huge difference between shooting at a robber at 5-10ft and missing, versus firing randomly into the store. I don't see the clerk trying his hand at the hostage taker accuracy shot either (the paper sheet has a victim with a bad guy behind, only the head showing.)

The $5M is also pulled out of thin air. The direct costs of such a shooting will vary considerably based on the circumstances and the extent of the injury (or death). Indirect costs are less clear - Bill is correct in that it will discourage many shoppers. I suspect it will also encourage a smaller number to choose to come because of the armed response.

It is well established that burglars and robbers revisit successful victims. It's especially bad for those who had their home or vehicle broken into - they come back after you've replaced the lost items with new shiny ones to steal.

As I wrote - success in robbery encourages more of the same. But if the criminal gets shot at, he will reconsider. This is true whether or not he gets shot, and whether or not a bystander gets shot. (BTW, in the latter circumstance, the robber will be criminally charged for the shooting of the customer, regardless of whose gun did it)

Walgreen's response is the correct short term thinking answer, just as settling liability lawsuits for 50k to save on court costs is often done by innocent parties. But in the long term, those actions can encourage similar events and end up costing more than fighting in the first place. It's much easier to quantify the short term, so the tendency is to go that route.

[david3 0]

Quote

But in the long term, those actions can encourage similar events and end up costing more than fighting in the first place.

Opinion?

[kallend 2,027]

Clearly you are smarter than the CEO and board of Walgreens. Why don't you offer to take over his position?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

you start with a premise that customers will be shot. That's not a given.

It is not my premise, it is one of the premises behind the company policy.

Quote

The direct costs of such a shooting will vary considerably based on the circumstances and the extent of the injury (or death).

If the company allows employees to carry, but does not provide training, the company is open to an incredible liability should a customer get hit. Adequate training for employees regarding close quarter use of guns would be extremely costly as well.

Quote

It is well established that burglars and robbers revisit successful victims. It's especially bad for those who had their home or vehicle broken into - they come back after you've replaced the lost items with new shiny ones to steal.

First of all, you cannot compare the b/e of a home or car to the robbery of a large store. Secondly, there are many other options available to companies, which carry no or significantly less increase in liability. Most companies avail themselves of those options after a robbery, but often more so to appease staff.

Quote

Walgreen's response is the correct short term thinking answer, just as settling liability lawsuits for 50k to save on court costs is often done by innocent parties. But in the long term, those actions can encourage similar events and end up costing more than fighting in the first place. It's much easier to quantify the short term, so the tendency is to go that route.

No, the no gun policy for employees is the correct policy. There are a myriad of other options open to the company.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No, the no gun policy for employees is the correct policy. There are a myriad of other options open to the company.

more cameras! More replacement workers!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But in the long term, those actions can encourage similar events and end up costing more than fighting in the first place.

Opinion?

uh, no, fact. I wrote very clearly that long term, with second and third order effects, is harder to measure. I didn't state that it definitively is better or worse. Lots of people here are ready to make that declaration, in one case, based on numbers pulled out of his ass.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

more cameras! More replacement workers!

There are many more options.

If arming employees is truly the best solution, don't you think some large companies wouldn't have already implemented it? Not like a gun is new technology.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

more cameras! More replacement workers!

There are many more options.

If arming employees is truly the best solution, don't you think some large companies wouldn't have already implemented it? Not like a gun is new technology.

I talked about the tendency of people to think in the short term, and to favor the more easily quantifiable. Also, while the gun is old, the commonly available CCW is more recent.

The most likely response from a company like Walgreens is to just lock up the pharmacy at night. Solves the druggie problem, but is inconvenient to the customer.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The most likely response from a company like Walgreens is to just lock up the pharmacy at night. Solves the druggie problem, but is inconvenient to the customer.

Sounds like there would be a very large market for large format pharmacies with armed employees. Why do you think this market niche has not been filled?

Plus, I don't think that is the most likely scenario. Most likely scenario is some increased security presence for a week or two and then back to normal. Your predicted rash of follow up burglaries simply doesn't take place.

(Though that trend can sometimes be observed in smaller mom and pop type retail outlets, it simply cannot be duplicated in large format retail operations)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Walgreen's response is the correct short term thinking answer.

I disagree with this bit. (I think the rest of that paragraph is right on).

Walmart's correct response is to make good PR on this event as best they can.

1 - Publicize the employee's actions as heroic, but not in keeping with their stated policy.

2 - RETAIN the employee by retraining him on the policy and making him sign that he's retrained and that he will comply with the policy in the future. This info should be part of the public communications.

3 - Make an announcement that they are reviewing the policy for consideration of changing it (but don't actually if that's what they want.)

they end up looking like good guys that care about and give 2nd chances to well meaning employees, and they put a little question in the minds of future thieves - it's all good press, and they still get to retain their policies

...
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

[Fast 0]

It's all fun and games till someone walks in and murders a store manager. That happened at a local Walmart, two guys robbed the place and shot the store manager dead.

They got the money, killed someone, and it freaked a lot of people out. They built a police station right there in the front of the Walmart. Staffed full time. The more affluent people avoided the place like the plague, but it didn't even phase Walmarts main clientele.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Walgreen's response is the correct short term thinking answer.

I disagree with this bit. (I think the rest of that paragraph is right on).

Walmart's correct response is to make good PR on this event as best they can.

1 - Publicize the employee's actions as heroic, but not in keeping with their stated policy.

2 - RETAIN the employee by retraining him on the policy and making him sign that he's retrained and that he will comply with the policy in the future. This info should be part of the public communications.

3 - Make an announcement that they are reviewing the policy for consideration of changing it (but don't actually if that's what they want.)

they end up looking like good guys that care about and give 2nd chances to well meaning employees, and they put a little question in the minds of future thieves - it's all good press, and they still get to retain their policies

I disagree, for the reasons Andy Boyd said in his post #27. I'll concede: from an ethical standpoint, I like your approach. (I initially was toying with a similar idea, but on reflection ruled it out.) From a business/legal/liability avoidance standpoint, it would be a non-starter if I was the attorney advising that business (or if I was advising that business's liability insurance carrier in its underwriting task).

You see, your suggestion initially seems attractive from a "this case" standpoint. But if Wal-Mart did what you suggest, it would have to worry that it was sending the wrong message: "It's ok to do this; you'll get minor discipline and a second chance." And that would just tacitly encourage workers to do the same thing. So what Wal-Mart's action does is it acts as a deterrent to its employees re: future incidents: "Don't do what this guy did, or you'll get fired, too."

[rehmwa 2]

I agree - good idea from an ethical and a PR point of view.

but.....Tough message to live with if you have a recalcitrant employee base. Some employees might respond favorably to the message, but I agree that most might just see a precedent that they can exploit later. though, 'zero tolerance' enforcement is a crappy game of CYA that people have to play, and lawyers have to advize.

...
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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You see, your suggestion initially seems attractive from a "this case" standpoint. But if Wal-Mart did what you suggest, it would have to worry that it was sending the wrong message: "It's ok to do this; you'll get minor discipline and a second chance." And that would just tacitly encourage workers to do the same thing. So what Wal-Mart's action does is it acts as a deterrent to its employees re: future incidents: "Don't do what this guy did, or you'll get fired, too."

ah, but you can always lie, too. Tell everyone he's fired, but don't do it.

Muni loves this approach. Last month a bus driver was video'd texting while driving. You can imagine the public response. It was announced that the driver was off the road pending due process, but two weeks later, that same driver was seen driving again. When that got out, the driver was fired, and the supervisor was now being investigated.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

They built a police station right there in the front of the Walmart.

Wow, so there are other options than arming your employees? Incredible.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

They built a police station right there in the front of the Walmart.

Wow, so there are other options than arming your employees? Incredible.

absolutely, why take the free option of letting the pharmacist that wants to carry continue to work when the taxpayers can just build an entire police station next door?

this way it's FREE

...
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

[kelpdiver 2]

Walgreens won't get the free police station. Walmart might.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

why take the free option of letting the pharmacist that wants to carry continue to work when the taxpayers can just build an entire police station next door?

Big assumption. I have paid for a police station before in a similar scenario. No tax payer dollars involved.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

No, the no gun policy for employees is the correct policy. There are a myriad of other options open to the company.

more cameras! More replacement workers!

7-11 is hiring...

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

7-11 is hiring...

It's a good thing that store clerk didn't have a gun with which to defend himself - he might have really been hurt!

[Southern_Man 0]

There are alternative scenarios


http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/20/new.york.pharmacy.shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[PiLFy 3]

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 just filed suit against Walgreen's for wrongful termination: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/08/us-crime-walgreens-lawsuit-idUSTRE7876B220110908

[popsjumper 2]

From a previous post:

Quote

He fired three times and missed all three times.

From kelp's post:

Quote

There is a huge difference between shooting at a robber at 5-10ft and missing, versus firing randomly into the store.

Not much of one.
I'll be damned if I want some bozo popping off rounds in public like he did.

Having the gun is all well and good. Using it to defend whatever is all well and good.

BUT...firing three times and missing? With other people around?
- Be sure of your target
- Be sure of the background

Obviously, to me that guy
-sucked at shooting, or
-was too scared to control himself, or
-had no training, or
-too stupid to use the training, or
-just a bozo to start with

I'd have fired him for missing.
Dumbass. He and everyone else in the store at the time are just damned lucky THEY didn't get hit.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The Pharmacist just filed suit against Walgreen's for wrongful termination: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/08/us-crime-walgreens-lawsuit-idUSTRE7876B220110908

With any luck he gets a judge that slam dunks his sorry ass and makes him pay the store.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kelpdiver 2]

bit of an old thread being resurrected by his lawsuit.

As I (think I) wrote earlier, it's hard to evaluate the risk of the missed shots without some context. We do know it was late night, making it unlikely that there were a lot of patrons in the line of fire. Could be there were none. We don't know what the background of the target was. Big difference between rows of product versus a single solid wall.

He didn't fire randomly in the store, he fired rapidly at someone that was 5-10 ft away (bit of a range there, no?) Missing a moving target at that range and those circumstances is not a shock. It did make the bad guys go away.

As for the lawsuit, he'll lose quickly. Bad policy or not, it's not unconstitutional for Walgreens to insist their guys be unarmed. He'd have done better to argue unsafe work conditions than a constitutional right to bear arms.