(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Employee fired for pulling gun on robbers!!!

D

Deere Scotty

Member
A Walgreens pharmacy in Benton Harbor, MI. Store was robbed with the same employee about 4 years ago. He buys a gun, & chases the robbers away this time. Then gets fired! If I was in that store as a customer at the time of the robbery I wouldnt care if he had pulled out an AK47, or 50 calliber machine gun, or threw a hand grenage!!! Crooks make their decision while people defending themselves make theirs. I say "Way To Go" for the Clerk!!!
 
Money isn't worth dying over unless there's an awful lot of it. You might feel differently about armed Wlagreen employees if that employee shot you by mistake or one of the robbers shot you while engaged in a firefight with cowboy bob the pharmacy clerk.
 
(quoted from post at 16:05:08 09/12/11) Money isn't worth dying over unless there's an awful lot of it. You might feel differently about armed Wlagreen employees if that employee shot you by mistake or one of the robbers shot you while engaged in a firefight with cowboy bob the pharmacy clerk.
Click to expand...

There's more to this story, I've heard. The crook tried to fire his gun but it misfired. That's when the pharmacist pulled his gun out of the holster (he has a CCW permit) and fired at the robber. Was he supposed to wait and see if the crook's gun misfired AGAIN? His (and everyone elses) life was clearly in jeopardy when the crook showed his intention to SHOOT.

Plus, your comment "Money isn't worth dying over unless there's an awful lot of it. " is stupid. How much is "an awful lot"?

I think that public sentiment is clearly on the side of the pharmacist with the exception of abundant do-gooders like yourself who have perfect 20-20 vision when it comes to what other people should do when looking down the barrel of a criminal's gun.

I don't feel the least endangered by a "cowboy bob" behind the counter of a Walgreens.
 
Not at the risk of customers and bystanders. That's why they have cameras and police officers. The police can pick up the crackhead at home, cuff and stuff him, and take him to disneyland.
 
You are assuming that lowlifes are rational. When they need drugs, that's their focus. The risk of getting arrested or killed doesn't register in their minds.
 

Are you a moron or what? Yeah, so they might pick up the guy based on the security tape (after the cops show up a half hour after the guy is gone) and charge him with what? MURDER? That dead pharmacist will sure feel a lot better (sarcasm intended).
 
(quoted from post at 16:21:17 09/12/11) You are assuming that lowlifes are rational. When they need drugs, that's their focus. The risk of getting arrested or killed doesn't register in their minds.
Click to expand...

Exactly why the pharmacist couldn't take a chance with his own life, not knowing what an "irrational" lowlife might do. He probably wasn't trying to be a hero and protect the store inventory OR customers for that matter. He was faced with a life-and-death decision which evidently seems to escape your feeble mind.
 
So how much money is worth dying for? I am real curious on your answer, cause If you are dead 100 million bucks doesnt spend well in Heaven or Hell.

I am glad the store clerk fired.
 
Exactly, without knowing how much he trains/practises he could have just as likely killed a bystander. Need to know more about the story to form my opinion.
 
(quoted from post at 13:19:33 09/12/11) Not at the risk of customers and bystanders. That's why they have cameras and police officers. The police can pick up the crackhead at home, cuff and stuff him, and take him to disneyland.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that all "sounds good on paper",... but NONE of it actually deters a doped-up crook from killing someone in the store before the cops can pick him up hours/days/weeks later (IF they ever DO find him).
 
"When they need drugs, that's their focus. The risk of getting arrested or killed doesn't register in their minds."


Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

If that were true they'd rob their dealer. Except they KNOW they are dead if they rob their dealer - even if they kill him in the process.
 
And if the crackhead decides to kill a few people on his way out the door because they looked at him wrong?

Or should we rely on the idea that the guy that's pulled a gun and threatec o kill everyone won't hurt anyone out of the goodness of their heart?
 
That's why a hunk of lead will better register in their feeble minds, if they have one. Rid the world of such pieces of feces is my opinion. TDF
 

pharmacist in oklahoma was convicted of murder for shooting a robber in his store-----not for initially shooting him, but for shooting him again after he chased the robbers partner out the door.

I think it should be mandatory for all pharmacies to have an armed employee. Criminals don't try to rob NRA conventions or gunshows for a reason.
 
Deere Scotty, JML 755,Stotted horse andP Aglen I totally with you guys 100%. Any time someone sticks a gun in your face they are up to no good .I would have done same thing if i was in his place. If he would have killed him it would save the tax payers the cost of hunting him down and putting him through the court system.
 
GunGuru, you must have missed the part about where the dirtball"s gun mis-fired. Giving the clerk the opportunity to defend himself and the others in the store, I will NOT go to wallgreens now that they were stupid enough to fire him. I only wish the clerk were prepared better to put one between the eyes of the dirtball. A dead criminal is the only good criminal.
 
This happened to a friend of my father back in the 70's or 80's, they went to pharmacy school together- this guy chased the robber to the door, stepped outside and kept shooting, killing the bad guy. Mass laws are like most states and most of the world- you have to be INSIDE a home or business to use deadly force without question.... chase the guy, have a gun battle in the middle of the street- is the cop's job. Or suppose to be if they show up, either way, your 'duty' to business and customers is -inside. Outside, leaves lawyers, corupt judges and lame law enforcement to defend the bad guy- so there will be 'questions'and possible charges. to say you are protecting the public 'out there' ain't your business, inside the business is your business... a bank manager and I were talking about this awhile ago. She said if anything happened while I was in there, fire away, but she or someone will lock all the doors with an electric switch, she said our situation is inside, any crooks outside are police problems, we just stay on the floor with the dead crooks till the cops show up and secure the neighborhood. That was her 'training' on these 'events' . My dad's friend plugging one was in the hayday of mass gun control, but he got off, with the warning the next time he chased someone down the road shooting at him, it may fly in his face. If the people OUTSIDE the home or store need protecting, they got to get their own gun.... and that's the way it should be, get ownership in US and Canada up where it should be- hundreds of millions, 100% of clean record populations...
 
IF the Walgreens pharmacy had killed the robber, it would have been a shooten not a murder. A shotten is when the robber deserves to die.
 
Oops, I mean that I am glad the store clerk fired his gun, not that he got fired. I worded that wrong.
 
(quoted from post at 13:00:35 09/12/11) A Walgreens pharmacy in Benton Harbor, MI. Store was robbed with the same employee about 4 years ago. He buys a gun, & chases the robbers away this time. Then gets fired! If I was in that store as a customer at the time of the robbery I wouldnt care if he had pulled out an AK47, or 50 calliber machine gun, or threw a hand grenage!!! Crooks make their decision while people defending themselves make theirs. I say "Way To Go" for the Clerk!!!
Click to expand...

link:

http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/218802/337/Clerk-shoots-at-robber-in-self-defense-gets-fired
 
Tony ,Mass law is sick.It requires you to leave your home if an intruder breaks in.Maine law says you dont even have to warn an intruder if it would put you at risk.Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 The crook pulled the trigger 3 times on the pharmacist.Self defense is my right in Maine.
 
I think you guys may be missing the point a bit. I am sure the employee was fired for breaking company policy, not the actual shooting. Any corporation even near as big as Walgreens has a policy in place about what to do in a situation such as this. I would bet dollars to donuts almost every single one of them states that you are to remain calm and collected and do whatever the nice man with the gun says you should. It is the safest option for everyone: employees, customers and bystanders. Whether what the clerk did was illegal, right, wrong, justiied or not he broke company policy (I am guessing 2 fold: once for being armed while on the floor and once for not complying with a robber) and was fired for it.

What you have to keep in mind in terms of corporate policies like this is that criminals have a fight or flight response just like you do. If you stick a gun in their face they are more likely to fire back just like you would.
 
(quoted from post at 16:03:23 09/12/11) I think you guys may be missing the point a bit. I am sure the employee was fired for breaking company policy, not the actual shooting. Any corporation even near as big as Walgreens has a policy in place about what to do in a situation such as this. I would bet dollars to donuts almost every single one of them states that you are to[b:eb7e24277d] remain calm and collected and do whatever the nice man with the gun says you should. It is the safest option for everyone: employees, customers and bystanders.[/b:eb7e24277d] Whether what the clerk did was illegal, right, wrong, justiied or not he broke company policy (I am guessing 2 fold: once for being armed while on the floor and once for not complying with a robber) and was fired for it.

What you have to keep in mind in terms of corporate policies like this is that[b:eb7e24277d] criminals have a fight or flight response just like you do. If you stick a gun in their face they are more likely to fire back just like you would.[/b:eb7e24277d]
Click to expand...

Watch the video. The robbers came in and attacked the clerk, tried to shoot him and the gun didn't go off. There was no option to 'remain calm and everything will be okay', he was under attack and his life was in danger.

Agree that he was likely fired for violating company policy. Stupid, in my opinion.

Choice between job or life? I know which I would choose.
 
Move to Alabama, our laws now state that if you feel that your life is threatened then you have the right to shoot the other person, inside or outside a building it doesn't matter. Just a couple of years back the former Mayor of Montgomery AL told folks to buy a gun and learn how to use it, he later became a US Congressman.
 
dhermesc, I don"t think you know what you"re talking about. My wife is a pharmacist and I hear several times a month about "drug seekers" as she calls them. The lengths some of these low life"s go to to get drugs would surprise you. Recently she assisted in having one arrested when he tried refill someone else"s script. The stories and excuses they give can be compared to stories my step kids made up when I"d catch them "in the cookie jar" so to speak.
 
I bet that poor poor robber was just tired of waiting on his food stamps and welfare check, hell, he probably broke in line too cause he needed a fix. That poor poor robber gonna tell the judge he was high so he will only get rehab.
 
We had a similar situation a few years ago near Des Moines when pizza delivery guy got robbed. He pulled a gun and shot one of the robbers. Godfather's fired him for having a weapon in spite of the P.D. saying it was self defense and no charges would be filed.
 
Shoot a few more of the LOW life's and thing will turn around. This is why the world is the way it is. A few minority's cry and the whole world stops to dry their tears. Defend your self and this stuff will stop. Who would go up against someone that you know would shoot you? DUH!
 
Check out the link to watch the video of what happened. Personally I think the guy did the right thing, heck the only thing. Had he not had the gun he wouldn't have had his life. Personally I think the loss of a job from a company that doesn't care any more for their employees than Walgreens apparently does isn't that big of a loss. Actually if Walgreens really cares they should be willing to offer multi million dollar life insurance policies for each and every one of their employees, on their dime, to insure the future well being of any employees family should that employee be killed while 'on duty'. While that might not guarantee the safey of the employee it will show they care at least a little and might just give them an incentive to allow their employees to do whatever they need to do to make sure they don't have to pay out on their policy.........Just saying.......
Watch the video
 
Personally, I would not want to work inside the Benton Harbor city limits unless I was WELL armed. It's one of the few places in the country that are scarier than my beloved Detroit. That said, it's the employer's business whether or not their employees are armed. If the employee violated that policy, it's the employer's perogative to fire him. I find it hilarious that y'all constantly complain that businesses ought to do whatever they please, yet get bent out of shape when they actually do it.

Whether or not it make sense for a company to have armed employees is a decision made by accountants, not cowboys. Very few companies still have armed security guards anymore. Most companies did the math, and figured that any increase in security provided by armed guards was more than outweighed by increased insurance premiums and/or risk of lawsuit.
 
Watch the video. The robbers came in and attacked the clerk, tried to shoot him and the gun didn't go off. There was no option to 'remain calm and everything will be okay', he was under attack and his life was in danger.

Agree that he was likely fired for violating company policy. Stupid, in my opinion.

Choice between job or life? I know which I would choose.
Click to expand...

I did watch the video. Until we have video of when the pharmacist pulled out his gun (which we do not have) you cannot tell what actually happened in terms of if the pharmacist drew which caused the response. You see the guy jump over the counter and you see the pharmacist fire. The fact that the guys went into the store with their faces covered indicates they were worried about being identified by living victims. I also note that when the gunman jumped over the counter he crouched down when he attempted to fire. That to me sounds like Officer Pharmacist's gun was already out. If that is true at that point it becomes kill or be killed.
 
This brings another topic to the forfront about this pathetic country. Anybody else notice that corporate america is now telling the US Government what to do. Case in point the Pharmacist is a CCW holder and Walgreens says to bad. We would rather have you dead than axxept that you have a gun and are trained how to use it. I guess really its not a pathetic country its the Candy-Butt-Chicken-Pooped Congressman and Senators we have that are pathetic. I am almost embarrassed to afmit I am American. Sad Sad Sad
 
If ANY business owner has a policy that employees cannot have weapons (only robbers will have them), that business owner should have their business license revoked for being too stupid to know how to protect their store and employees.

When stores post "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS ALLOWED" they tell every would be crook and robber that NO ONE in the store will have a gun but them. WOW, that is as bad as telling the terroist communities everything we know.
 
That does not apply now, if it ever really did, 'cause there is so many tall tales and scare tactics compare to facts. A few months ago, I remember there was deep snow- some one shot a guy- drunk and on drugs, who... might have thought he was breaking into his ex wife's home.... can't ask him now, he got shot dead. just inside the window. Mass law say's bad guy has to be inboard of the swing of a door, +/-3 feet.... nothing ever written about windows, so homeowner wasn't charged, in the news, in the hot seat, but no legal hassle... dead guy is still dead. And they are thinking about making people put bigger numbers on the houses, so's drunks and stoned guys can break into the right place next time.... but the point I was making, old common law said basicly, if a fight starts in a building, to be the good guy- you must end it in the building, starting outdoors is a different matter, that's why some people get the book thrown at them for a barroom brawl gone into the parking lot.... but that's another dead drunk matter... an old friend in the sticks of the adirondacks got penned up for a shot fired - and no one even aimed at- but standing at/ near his mail box- +500? 700? feet from the house. That did not end in his favor at all......
 
Daughter is a pahrmacist for a nationally known chain. Also a concealed weapons licensee. Her employer forbids employees to carry in their stores. No, I'm not impressed.
 
(quoted from post at 18:53:12 09/12/11)
I did watch the video. Until we have video of when the pharmacist pulled out his gun (which we do not have) you cannot tell what actually happened in terms of if the pharmacist drew which caused the response. You see the guy jump over the counter and you see the pharmacist fire. [b:d0ed6fb4e1] The fact that the guys went into the store with their faces covered indicates they were worried about being identified by living victims. [/b:d0ed6fb4e1] I also note that when the gunman jumped over the counter he crouched down when he attempted to fire. That to me sounds like Officer Pharmacist's gun was already out. [b:d0ed6fb4e1] If that is true at that point it becomes kill or be killed[/b:d0ed6fb4e1].
Click to expand...

So, the robbers had to defend themselves against the VICTIM when he used a gun to defend his life because two CRIMINALS came to the store to injure or kill the people inside for whatever they could steal? Really??

The two robbers are the problem here. They went out and committed a crime, this time the person fought back. If they had not tried to rob the clerk, they would not have gotten shot at, plain and simple.
 
So, the robbers had to defend themselves against the VICTIM when he used a gun to defend his life because two CRIMINALS came to the store to injure or kill the people inside for whatever they could steal? Really??

The two robbers are the problem here. They went out and committed a crime, this time the person fought back. If they had not tried to rob the clerk, they would not have gotten shot at, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

You are reading more into my response than was intended. What I have posted is that companies have a policy of compliance because that is in their best interest. I mentioned that the clerk may have caused the situation to escalate to firing by attempting to defend himself (which no where did I say he was not personally entitled to do so). When looking at policies like caused this man to get fired you need to look at the whole entire picture and what could happen.

Imagine this: Two masked armed assailants walk into a pharmacy. They hold the employees at gunpoint demanding prescription narcotics...

ending 1. When one of the assailants points his weapon at the pharmacist and demands the narcotics the pharmacist, as calmly as possible, gives the assailant what he demands. The assailants leave the store.

ending 2. When one of the assailants points his weapon at the pharmacist, the pharmacist, knowing his right to self defense pulls out his personal weapon. The situation has now escalated and the assailant fires or attempts to fire at the pharmacist who returns fire. In the gunfight (which is perfectly legal) an innocent bystander (let's make it a 6 year old girl there with her grandmother just for effect) is shot and killed (and it doesn't matter by whom).

A company would rather have 1000 of ending 1 than a single ending 2. It is for that reason they have policies like the one this employee broke. In this particular case no one was hurt and I think everyone is thankful for that. However you cannot base policy on the outcome of what happened. "Community mourns after 6 year old dies during gunfight between robber and Walgreen's employee" is not a headline the company ever wants to see. Ever.
 

Ryan,

My responses to your posts were based on your comments regarding the events that took place. In this case, corporate policy does nothing to address the threat that the employee faced at the time. Firing the clerk, in my opinion, was a slap in the face to him. He fought for his life while on the job, then was terminated because some person in a nice safe office decided that is not "policy".

Company policy is not going to guarantee any outcome in a robbery or other crime. The person who should be punished is the criminal who broke the law, not the law abiding citizen who broke "policy".

No reason to do 'what if's' here.
 
Sounded like if he didn't have a gun he'd be dead. I saw the video tonight and thought he did right. Company can only think about covering there own butt by not allowing the employees to come to work packin'. They are wrong!

Even if the guy got fired at least he's still alive. He can always sue the company for not protecting him and making the need to come packin'.
 
Steve did you look at video? Cameras not going to tell much about those guys they were covered up so all you see are there eyes and color of skin and height. they had gloves on so if they wiped the gun down before robbery there won't be any prints.On top of that the gun was most likely stolen.
 
I just can't follow your logic. What did corporate america tell the US Government (or any State, county or city) what to do ? I think that pharmacist did exactly the right thing, but I am a strong believer in private property rights. Do you think the government should be able to dictate how private property is managed ? Wallgreens ownes the place, do you think government should determine Walgreens policy. I know on my land I want to be able to say who can be on it and if they can have guns or not.
 
You left out ending number three. The pharmacist complies and gives the drugs and is then shot by the scumbags who get away scot free. TDF
 
(quoted from post at 03:23:36 09/13/11) You left out ending number three. The pharmacist complies and gives the drugs and is then shot by the scumbags who get away scot free. TDF
Click to expand...

Bingo. I'm not going to bet my life on the bad guys leaving peacefully.
 
Appears to me this "ain't your fault, do what you want to society" isn't working out so good. It's a downright shame a man can't put in his shift at work without worrying about being alive to clock out.

I'm sure most non owner employers would terminate any employee of theirs if faced with the same situation now a day's. They have an obligation to provide a safe work environment, but that doesn't seem to apply anymore when it comes dealing with people who are on drugs, alcohol, or are just plain mean. After all, it isn't their fault, it's the drugs, alcohol, their parent's or teachers who made them that way. Doesn't make it right, just the way it is.

Survival is a God given instinct given to every living creature. When looking into the barrel of a gun natural instinct tells you you are about to die. That's a fact all the politically correct folks in the world can't change. The plain and simple truth is you stop him or he's gonna stop you. Instinct forces you to act to survive. If I were in that store and was shot accidently by the clerk who was just trying to stay alive there's no way I could blame him. The blame go's to the one who forced him to act.
 
(quoted from post at 19:57:47 09/12/11)

You are reading more into my response than was intended. What I have posted is that companies have a policy of compliance because that is in their best interest. I mentioned that the clerk may have caused the situation to escalate to firing by attempting to defend himself (which no where did I say he was not personally entitled to do so). When looking at policies like caused this man to get fired you need to look at the whole entire picture and what could happen.

A company would rather have 1000 of ending 1 than a single ending 2. It is for that reason they have policies like the one this employee broke. In this particular case no one was hurt and I think everyone is thankful for that. [b:a35a93b65f]However you cannot base policy on the outcome of what happened.[/b:a35a93b65f]
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like sound reasoning at all, Wallgreens just as well put a sign in each of their store windows that says,...
[b:a35a93b65f]We welcome anyone who attempts to rob us at gun/knife point.
Wallgreens company policy PROHIBITS any/all RESISTANCE from our employees, during the commission of your crimes.
Just please use the "COMMON SENSE" to NOT SHOOT/STAB ANYONE while you are in our store.
Please feel free to stop by often to threaten our employees and customers, because we REALLY DO value you as a frequent shopper.[/b:a35a93b65f]
 
You really ought to discuss that with a police officer who has done some undercover work.

Drug dealers, other than the lowest-level mules, have enforcers with them full time. The lowest-level mules (1) are expendable, and (2) don't carry significant amounts of drugs with them.
 
Several of you guys want to have a shootout with a druggy in a store full of innocent people, and then you want to call me an idiot. Right.

I'll let you try to think about how that shootout might turn out, if you can.
 
Since this thread is about how messed up our society is when dealing with criminal elements, below is another example of it (published in a Detroit newspaper little while back):
---------
"A federal appeals panel today threw out the 2001 first-degree murder conviction of a Detroit man who gunned down a liquor store customer [b:9c655cc0f8]because the man accidentally bumped into him.[/b:9c655cc0f8]
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said Reginald Walker, 57, of Detroit was the victim of bad lawyering. It said his lawyer failed to pursue an insanity defense in the April 2000 slaying of Larry Troup despite Walker’s lengthy history of mental problems.

“There is an [b:9c655cc0f8]overwhelming probability[/b:9c655cc0f8] that knowledge of Walker’s history of severe mental illness [b:9c655cc0f8]would have shed a different light for the jury on witness testimony[/b:9c655cc0f8] regarding the facts of the crime,” the panel said in a 2-1 decision signed by Appeals Judges Damon Keith"
-----
Judge Damon Keith would allow Mr. Walker, a person who the judge admits has a "history of severe mental illness", to walk the streets again. This is a guy who KILLED SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY BUMPED INTO HIM IN LINE! So there is a possibility he'll be in line again soon at a liquor store near you. Take a good look at his picture on Michigan's Corrections Database OTIS, so you'll be sure not to accidentally bump into him.

I don't care whether he has a mental illness or not, the guy should not be walking around in society. Period.
 
(quoted from post at 10:12:54 09/13/11) Several of you guys[b:e7e204e67b] want to [/b:e7e204e67b]have a shootout with a druggy in a store full of innocent people, and then you want to call me an idiot. Right.

I'll let you try to think about how that shootout might turn out, if you can.
Click to expand...

Steve, you are a moron, aren't you? Nobody on this board has said they "WANT" to have a shootout. The pharmacist wasn't pulling his gun on a regular basis on every Tom Dick and Harry walking in the door, screaming "do you feel lucky today, punk?". Look at the tape. S**t was happening fast. The pharmacist was in a life-and-death situation. A guy jumping over the counter waving a gun! WTF! Are you saying you would have just holstered your pistol, raised your arms as the guys pulling the trigger again and again and ASK him not to hurt you?

Of course, besides just being a bleeding-hear abundant, there is the possibility that you've done your share of misdeeds, spent time behind bars and "feel" for the poor robber.

There is absolutely no way that the pharmacist (or anyone else) could have predicted the outcome of that situation. Do you think that he was thinking about store "policy" in those few seconds? Was he calculating all the possible outcomes as some posters alluded to and assessing probabilities in his head like you see in the Terminator movies? (20% chance of the guy shooting, 10% chance of him just walking out, 5% chance of the robber dying of a heart attack on the floor, oops, he pulled the trigger, 90% chance of him shooting again, etc)

And if you think the pharmacist being armed "provoked" him into firing, would you bet your life on the whims of some guy who is in the process of committing a felony for fear that you might "provoke" him by pulling your weapon?

No way, no how was that pharmacist wrong. Crawl back in your cocoon.
 
Exactly, the users know robbing their dealer is suicide - so the rational thing to do is rob someone else that they don't think will harm them. If they knew they faced the same fire power from the average citizen they wouldn't rob them either.
 
Whether you wish to participate or not the druggy has already started the shootout; it’s a little late to say "Not my problem".
 
(quoted from post at 02:51:45 09/13/11) Personally, I would not want to work inside the Benton Harbor city limits unless I was WELL armed. It's one of the few places in the country that are scarier than my beloved Detroit.
Click to expand...

That's what everyone who's never been to Benton Harbor is missing. Sadly, BH is a sick city, but when the sun goes down it becomes a really creepy place. The city is falling apart, nobody cares to do anything about it other than blame the "twin city" of St. Joseph. The Walgreens employee may need his firearm just to get to his vehicle after work.

Although I agree that an employer should be able to have a policy in place on how to handle these situations, this policy will now get some bad press and maybe some more Walgreens employees will get an idea on how much "corporate" values their existance. If I were the employee who "fired" and "got fired", I wouldn't feel too bad about it. He now knows the value his former employer put on his life, and it wasn't much. He was just supposed to roll over and die so long as he followed policy. At the end of the day, he just wanted to make an honest living and go home at night. He was just protecting himself from someone who's intent was to kill him, and is so very lucky the crook's gun didn't fire as "...The gunman repeatedly attempted to fire...". He wasn't trying to protect property or money, he was attempting to survive a murder attempt. I'm on the employee's side 100%. In the eyes of the law, the employee was in the right, and sadly, and legally, Walgreens can fire him, too.

They ought to give the former Walgreens employee a medal, or the key to the city, but they won't. That would lead to others following suit and potentially lead to Benton Harbor becoming a respectable city again.

Maybe the CVS or Rite-Aid down the street are hiring?

AG
 
Tony I lived in Ma for 29 years.I had carry permits in MA.I had to know the law ,chapter and section.Had a police officer for a friend. I knew the law.You can get bagged in Ma for having a couple of shotgun shells in you car or truck.You need a FOID card to buy a Daisy bb gun.You cant order reloading supplies in MA.I left there in 1965.Nice place.
 
Can't see anything wrong with that.
You are glad the store clerk fired. That to me indicates he used a weapon.
Otherwise you would have used "got fired" that gives it a different meaning.
 
I'm sure all the armchair lawyers and wingers have beat the drums enough on this one. The fact is that the employee was terminated because Walgreen did not want hoards of well wishers and autograph seekers in the store disrupting normal business.
 
I emailed Walgreen and got this response:

Thank you for taking the time to email us with your concern. Please be assured that Walgreens takes customer comments and complaints very seriously, and we will continue to try to improve the way we do business.



Thank you for contacting Walgreens regarding this matter. Our policies in this area are designed to maintain the maximum safety of our customers and employees. Store employees receive comprehensive training on our company’s robbery procedures and how to react and respond to a potential robbery situation. In past incidents, employees have told us they’ve found this training effective. These policies and training programs are endorsed by law enforcement, which strongly advises against confrontation of crime suspects. Compliance is safer than confrontation. For more than 100 years and across now more than 7,700 stores, this has resulted in an exemplary record of safety. We’ve made significant investments in security technology in recent years, including increasing the number of digital surveillance cameras at our stores. With upgrades to security technology, we are able to provide police with high-resolution photographs and video of crime suspects. We continue to invest in state-of-the-art security measures and high-definition surveillance equipment and hope that the apprehension of robbery suspects in the Benton Harbor area will prevent future crimes. Thank you for contacting Walgreens to share your comments.


Again, thank you for taking time to bring your comment to our attention. We hope you'll give us another chance to serve you.

Sincerely,


Queena P
Consumer Response Representative
 
Uh Steve, could I have your home address just in case I am short of cash in the future? I promise not to actually shoot you and you promise you won't resist.

I agree that money is not worth dying for - however, I refuse to allow anyone to steal my way of life and all that I have worked for during my life. This stupid idea of "let them have whatever they want and don't resist" only encourages an increase in the number of thieves and robbers. If I gotta live that way, then just let me die a little earlier and enjoy my life as shortened as it may be.

"A coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero only once"
 
(quoted from post at 11:03:24 09/13/11)
(quoted from post at 02:51:45 09/13/11) Personally, I would not want to work inside the Benton Harbor city limits unless I was WELL armed. It's one of the few places in the country that are scarier than my beloved Detroit.
Click to expand...

That's what everyone who's never been to Benton Harbor is missing. Sadly, BH is a sick city, but when the sun goes down it becomes a really creepy place. The city is falling apart, nobody cares to do anything about it other than blame the "twin city" of St. Joseph. The Walgreens employee may need his firearm just to get to his vehicle after work.
Click to expand...

It would be easier to carpet bomb the area. The problem is it isn't just the city by the river, the problems extend out to the Malls and the strips away from town.

It is definitely in a sad state.
 
From Walgreens response their idea of security seems very passive by nature.

If the perpetrators gun had not misfired, I can’t see that the Video tapes would have been of much aid to the dead guy or of a great deal of comfort to the widow.

I guess Walgreens pride themselves in the policy that if we can identify and prosecute the perpetrations we can limit the number of dead pharmacists to an acceptable level.
 
(quoted from post at 14:54:21 09/14/11) I emailed Walgreen and got this response:

Thank you for taking the time to email us with your concern...
Click to expand...

...(paraphrasing) so if our valued employee would have been shot full of holes our fancy security cameras would have got an nice clean image of the murderer so his family could get a good look at the [insert awful word(s) here] that murdered him, and we could get good footage of exactly where we would need to bleach the blood stains out of the floor after the medics carried his carcass out...

...Sincerely,


Queena P
Consumer Response Representative
Click to expand...

I wonder how many thousands of that form letter they sent out since this happened?

By the time the employee would have tried to get on the floor in an unthreatening position he would have been shot several times if the attempted murderer's gun would have went off. The perp wasn't saying "get down on the floor or I'll fill you full of holes" he was already firing a weapon that wouldn't cooperate with him at the Walgreens employee. Even if he did, he was already firing. You can not comply with a person shooting at you. The pharmacist used his last line of defense to protect his life. He was not protecting Walgreen's money in the register or Walgreen's property on the shelves (and he'd be a fool to do so). He was simply trying to stay alive.

Could the Walgreens employee have shot a customer or another employee, or even someone outside the building? It's possible, but the odds are much better that if the robber's gun would have went off, we'd be talking about a pharmacist's funeral rather than his employer firing him.


When I was a kid, I remember watching the body bags being wheeled out of a local Osco Drug store on Western Ave. in South Bend, IN, on TV. I wonder if those folks complied with the wishes of their murderer?

Whether or not this guy did it, he did steal from his employer and was fired for it. Some people get mad, some get even, some get away with getting even. http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/4971976.html


Sorry, I digress. The ex-employee is suing Walgreens. I would have sued for failing to provide a safe work environment, but he chose to sue for wrongful termination.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/08/benton_harbor_pharmacist_who_s.html

Note to Walgreens: Either get armed guards to protect your employees or allow your employees to take reasonable measures to protect themselves if your lawyers want to dream up policy such as this non-confrontation BS. Cameras don't protect anyone. Criminals like the ones in this case do not fear them.

AG
 
"The ex-employee is suing Walgreens. I would have sued for failing to provide a safe work environment, but he chose to sue for wrongful termination."

I'm amazed he could find a lawyer who would take the case. Wrongful termination cases are losers from the start, since employers don't have to have a reason to fire "at-will" employees.
 
(quoted from post at 02:05:40 09/15/11)
I'm amazed he could find a lawyer who would take the case. Wrongful termination cases are losers from the start, since employers don't have to have a reason to fire "at-will" employees.
Click to expand...

There's always a lawyer to take any case. He might be working out of a '78 Buick under a highway overpass somewhere, or a dumpster behind the Kwik-E-Mart, but there's always a lawyer to take a case that 100 before him turned down.

I'm rooting for him, but my guess is that in the legal system the ex-employee will get nowhere, but he gets to drag Walgreens name through the mud for a while, and keeps this in the news. He wants it known that he isn't the bad guy (and he isn't). This incident and how it's interpreted could potentially prevent him from finding work elsewhere. In the end, he'll feel better than if he just walked away, even if it costs him a few bucks. There may even be states that enact laws (one way or another) based on what happened in this incident.

Walgreens can let him go at any time. Unless Walgreens' policy that he violated is ruled illegal, and the policy alone is the reason he was fired, he's out of luck unless they throw him a few bucks to make this go away, which they very well could do.

AG
 
(quoted from post at 22:35:03 09/12/11)
Ryan,

My responses to your posts were based on your comments regarding the events that took place. In this case, corporate policy does nothing to address the threat that the employee faced at the time. Firing the clerk, in my opinion, was a slap in the face to him. He fought for his life while on the job, then was terminated because some person in a nice safe office decided that is not "policy".

Company policy is not going to guarantee any outcome in a robbery or other crime. The person who should be punished is the criminal who broke the law, not the law abiding citizen who broke "policy".

No reason to do 'what if's' here.
Click to expand...

Except the "what ifs" are why the policies exist in the first place.
 
I shut down a burglary in progress.The crook had a short handle sledge,I had a 357 revolver.You have not been there or done that.It took the cops 30 minutes to get there and pick him up.He said thank you, thank you when they handcuffed him.I hope you smarten up and defend your self when the time comes for you.
 
(quoted from post at 13:38:18 09/12/11) So how much money is worth dying for? I am real curious on your answer, cause If you are dead 100 million bucks doesnt spend well in Heaven or Hell.

I am glad the store clerk fired.
Click to expand...

One dollar if its mine and you think you can take it from me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top