Pharmacist fired for pulling gun on robber....

[pr1042]

If walgreens has a policy (which every company I have worked has one), case will not go anywhere.

[ceyko]

I don't have laws to reference, but if anyone does please post them. However, in the CHL class the instructor made it clear you cannot have a gun in the work place if....

a. There is a written policy
b. Even if it was verbally told to you

b. obviously would be tough in a lawsuit.

Now understand, even if the laws are the same in Michigan as in Texas; I think in this case they should turn a blind eye. However, that's a slippery slope for the company. Everyone will start carrying because they let the one guy get away with it and he did good with it.

Either way you cut it, the Pharmacist is alive because of what he did and that's all that matters to him. It's not like he'll have a hard time finding another job and he may even be able to finagle a settlement out of it. I don't care for Walgreen's point of view on this, but I understand it from a paranoid, scared of liability, corporate view.

Edit: Most places I worked for have this policy, except the one I'm at now. Not sure if it is because it is an east coast based company and they never considered it, or they just don't care.

[Saleen781]

He can argue that Walgreens did not provide a safe place to work. They can easily install bullet proof glass around the pharmacy like many others have in bad areas, just like check cashing stores, jewelry stores, etc. more than likely policy will not change bit he will get a few bucks in his pocket to go away. he's alive and that's all that matters really.

[Broncojohnny]

From what I saw of this case yesterday, Walgreens has a "no escalation" policy. The guy in question had never heard of it and didn't acknowledge it in writing. He is suing because he was fired.

To me the issue of general self defense is more important than the issue of carrying a gun. Walgreen's is telling its employees that they can't defend themselves against physical violence simply because they want to limit their liability. They would rather face the legal action of a prior employee than the legal action of a criminal. They made their bed so I'd be suing them too.

[Broncojohnny]

The second amendment blows that policy out of the water.

Second amendment only deals with government restriction.

[ceyko]

To me the issue of general self defense is more important than the issue of carrying a gun. Walgreen's is telling its employees that they can't defend themselves against physical violence simply because they want to limit their liability. They would rather face the legal action of a prior employee than the legal action of a criminal. They made their bed so I'd be suing them too.

You're 100% right. You can't reasonably expect someone to not defend themselves.

If someone decides to run and can get away safely - great for them. It really is not worth get killed for a big corporate entity. However, if during that moment you decide to defend yourself (or as you mention - "escalate") - that is sensible from a common sense view (regardless of laws and technicalities) - it's just not realistic to expect an "employee" to back down. Specifically in a life threatening situation.

This goes back to the old argument of criminals will always have guns when they want them. The more you disarm the general public, employees and such the more potential victims you have. Granted, that sounds like the standard billy bad ass comment. However, I think even criminals would at least hesitate if they think their prey maybe armed. Having a gun does not mean you're safe by any means. However, it is a tool to be used, in defense of yourself if you have the chance.....got on this train of thought thinking that company will probably put up any and every sign to stop guns from being brought in. Which still won't stop a criminal from bringing one in.

I hate the anti-gun group these days. The older I get the more lenient I feel about people carrying guns.

I'm babbling.

[Broncojohnny]

You're 100% right. You can't reasonably expect someone to not defend themselves.

If someone decides to run and can get away safely - great for them. It really is not worth get killed for a big corporate entity. However, if during that moment you decide to defend yourself (or as you mention - "escalate") - that is sensible from a common sense view (regardless of laws and technicalities) - it's just not realistic to expect an "employee" to back down. Specifically in a life threatening situation.

This goes back to the old argument of criminals will always have guns when they want them. The more you disarm the general public, employees and such the more potential victims you have. Granted, that sounds like the standard billy bad ass comment. However, I think even criminals would at least hesitate if they think their prey maybe armed. Having a gun does not mean you're safe by any means. However, it is a tool to be used, in defense of yourself if you have the chance.....got on this train of thought thinking that company will probably put up any and every sign to stop guns from being brought in. Which still won't stop a criminal from bringing one in.

I hate the anti-gun group these days. The older I get the more lenient I feel about people carrying guns.

I'm babbling.

Not many people want to face down a gun, even in the most incompetent hands. That is why concealed carry is a success and also why the anti-gun lobby can only oppose it on a general "feel good" notion that it promotes violence. Of course it promotes violence, victims shoot criminals, obviously that is more violence but it is the best kind of violence you can ask for in my opinion.

I would quit any job that told me I couldn't defend myself.

[VETTKLR]

Damned if you do...Dead if you don't.

Homeboy needs to cut his losses and go put an application in at CVS, because a lawsuit is absolutely going to go nowhere. If Machx2's argument was true, then you would also be allowed to carry in nuclear facilities, refineries, etc, while touting the 2nd Amendment.

[GhostTX]

I don't have laws to reference, but if anyone does please post them. However, in the CHL class the instructor made it clear you cannot have a gun in the work place if....

a. There is a written policy
b. Even if it was verbally told to you
...

Wrong. Written policy is only valid if it's 30.06; however, then can still fire you for violation of policy, they just can't press charges. Verbal, he's correct.

From what I saw of this case yesterday, Walgreens has a "no escalation" policy. The guy in question had never heard of it and didn't acknowledge it in writing. He is suing because he was fired.

To me the issue of general self defense is more important than the issue of carrying a gun. Walgreen's is telling its employees that they can't defend themselves against physical violence simply because they want to limit their liability. They would rather face the legal action of a prior employee than the legal action of a criminal. They made their bed so I'd be suing them too.

It's cheaper to pay the life insurance policy than a liability law suit, more like it...

[danielhv]

Damned if you do...Dead if you don't.

Homeboy needs to cut his losses and go put an application in at CVS, because a lawsuit is absolutely going to go nowhere. If Machx2's argument was true, then you would also be allowed to carry in nuclear facilities, refineries, etc, while touting the 2nd Amendment.

All of those places usually have some sort of security, gates, guards, etc. nor do they deal with the general public, nor are they likely to get robbed. So the need to carry in places like that is much less pronounced. I think it would be harder to convince a jury otherwise. But in this case, the guy had a threat that endangered his life, he has a constitutional right to bear arms and defend himself, and he did. I think Walgreens will pay him to go away.

[VETTKLR]

Seems like the Slipperiest of the slippery slopes!

I'd rather lose my job for breaking their rules than lose my life, any day of the week!