Self-Protection

Jim Sr · May 21, 2011

Saying No To Self-Protection

The latest case involves the Walgreen's chain of pharmacies. :mad54:

.

jpk1md · May 21, 2011

Adding to the Vote With you dollars thread.

Walgreens is on the banned list now.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=9992

Jim Sr · May 21, 2011

jpk1md said:
Adding to the Vote With you dollars thread.

Walgreens is on the banned list now.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=9992

Bikebreath · May 21, 2011

I bought a pair of reading glasses at Walgreen's yesterday. I wish I would have know this yesterday. So, I wrote an email to tell them that I made a mistake and I'll never set foot in a Walgreen's again until their attitude is more in line with self-defense. I'll let you know if they reply.

Morons!

MDFF2008 · May 21, 2011

Compliance is placing total faith in a criminal that he just wants the money and will act in your best interest.

Resistance is protecting your best interests.

Micktaco · May 21, 2011

I just contacted them via their website and stated that my family no longer feels safe shopping at a store where robbers now believe it is "open season".

Cerebus · May 21, 2011

You guys are assuming companies like this are anti-2A. I think they are anti-getting sued. If an employee shoots a potential robber, whether legally allowed to carry or not, the company is going to be held liable in the almost-certain lawsuit. They're in business to make money, not political statements.

MDFF2008 · May 21, 2011

There is a lot of truth to what Cerebus says. When I worked at CVS, they told us not to fight or chase robbers because they don't want to be responsible for us getting hurt. I think they were concerned that employees would feel like they HAVE to fight back.

I think it's wrong to require employees to fight back (and not pay/train them accordingly) but if one has the means, it should not be punished.

Cerebus · May 21, 2011

gprimr1 said:
There is a lot of truth to what Cerebus says. When I worked at CVS, they told us not to fight or chase robbers because they don't want to be responsible for us getting hurt. I think they were concerned that employees would feel like they HAVE to fight back.

I think it's wrong to require employees to fight back (and not pay/train them accordingly) but if one has the means, it should not be punished.

Thats a point I didn't even think of. What if the emolyee fights back and the robber turns around and fires back? With the way this lawsuit crazy country is, you know the employee's family is going to file suit too if said employee is hurt or killed.

It's a sad situation overall.

canuck · May 21, 2011

This is a fine example of the meaningful discourse that we should be having. Good job fellas.

montoya32 · May 21, 2011

Cerebus said:
Thats a point I didn't even think of. What if the emolyee fights back and the robber turns around and fires back? With the way this lawsuit crazy country is, you know the employee's family is going to file suit too if said employee is hurt or killed.

It's a sad situation overall.

I agree that the companies are trying to cover their asses, but what if the employee does nothing and still gets shot or pistol whipped or assaulted? Just doesn't make sense. Don't fight back, because by not fighting back it is less likely that you will get hurt and eventually sue us. We'd rather get sued for you allowing the criminal rob us and assault you with no resistance.

My take is that in this particular case, this guy was not "protecting" the company, but himself and the other employees/customers. It's one thing to chase down a shoplifter, it's a completely different story to defend yourself from potentially getting injured or killed.

BTW, I will make certain that I do not fill my scripts or even buy a drink from Walgreens again.

Oreo · May 21, 2011

Can't there be some contractual terms of employment that say something like, "This company neither condones, nor prohibits lawful self defence. Your job responsibilities are specifically to NOT provoke a physical or violent confrontation under any circumstances, however, if a patron or criminal insists on making themselves a threat to you personally in spite of all your best efforts to diffuse the situation, you agree to assume all liability with regards to your actions in defense of self. As long as your conduct in defense of self is 100% within the law the company will remain neutral as to your means, methods, outcomes, and employment status."

Cerebus · May 21, 2011

Oreo, that shit won't fly in a court of law ...especially a civil case.

I am completely pro-2A, but I cant blame Walgreens here.

If the employee gets hurt following company policy, then I dont know what should happen ...but I know a shot robber's family isn't going to sue the company for millions becausec an employee was allowed to carry and defend themselves.

z_darktemplar · May 22, 2011

Well I don't shop at Walgreens anyway. This is kind of like a earlier news where a bank teller got fired after he jumped over the counter to fight and chase down a bank robber. Companies should give employees the option to fight back. Even if they don't, employees should still fight back if they think they are capable and want to. Heck you only get to live once.

Oreo · May 22, 2011

Nah, its not that simple. I can understand a loss prevention policy of non-resistance. That's fine. I just take offense to the idea that some companies would refuse you your right to defend your own life. My life is not company property so it is not for them to make policy for, & if they would rather I die then deal with whatever monetary loss may be incurred by me saving my own ass then they can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned. Yet there are plenty of companies out there with that kind of policy.

BondJamesBond · May 22, 2011

Cerebus said:
You guys are assuming companies like this are anti-2A. I think they are anti-getting sued. If an employee shoots a potential robber, whether legally allowed to carry or not, the company is going to be held liable in the almost-certain lawsuit. They're in business to make money, not political statements.

BondJamesBond · May 22, 2011

Oreo said:
Can't there be some contractual terms of employment that say something like, "This company neither condones, nor prohibits lawful self defence. Your job responsibilities are specifically to NOT provoke a physical or violent confrontation under any circumstances, however, if a patron or criminal insists on making themselves a threat to you personally in spite of all your best efforts to diffuse the situation, you agree to assume all liability with regards to your actions in defense of self. As long as your conduct in defense of self is 100% within the law the company will remain neutral as to your means, methods, outcomes, and employment status."

Walgreen can write all the boiler plate they want, but it still comes down to the employer is liable for the actions of the employee. Have an employee fire a gun at a perp and mistakenly hit another customer. Then watch the SHTF.

Bikebreath · May 22, 2011

I did receive a reply and it is everything we thought it would be:

May 21, 2011

Dear Mr. Bikebreath,

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. Through this practice, we have been able to maintain 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.

Sincerely,

Ella

Consumer Response Representative

Ref # 33333333

I was going to reply, "Baloney", but I'm just going to leave it alone.

Spot77 · May 22, 2011

I think there's one thing that can easily be agreed upon; NONE of us should be shopping anywhere that prohibits law abiding customers from carrying.

Bikebreath · May 22, 2011

My Dad and I were shopping for a new phone carrier and we went into Verizon in Hunt Valley Mall. As we entered the store there was a sign that said no firearms, (or something like that). I explained to my Dad that what that means to criminals is, come in here and do whatever you want, we can not protect ourselves. I think a light bulb turned on in his head.

Self-Protection

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Tool

Ultimate Member

Tool

Rifleman

Ultimate Member

Banned

Tool

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics