CNN Article about armed-Pharmacist defending drugstore


PDA






merlinfire
June 3, 2011, 03:53 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/03/drugstore.robberies/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


Instead of handing over the drugs, Donohue unholstered the Glock 19 handgun he wore beneath his white lab coat and sprinted to the front of the small pharmacy.

If you enjoyed reading about "CNN Article about armed-Pharmacist defending drugstore" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pacerdude
June 3, 2011, 04:35 PM
I'm glad that the pharmacist and his staff weren't harmed, and I applaud the man for defending his store. Although chasing after the criminal may not have been the best course of action, I commend him for his courage.

jscott
June 3, 2011, 05:10 PM
I am also pleased that an armed citizen was able to take action to thwart a serious and potentially deadly crime.

From a tactical standpoint, having made the decision to take action, I would like to have seen the defender take a position of cover and issue commands rather than exposing himself and advancing in the open. As it turns out, he opted for a "violence of action" to overwhelm the aggressor. Though leaving cover to overwhelm an assailant is a viable course of action in some situations, arguably not in this one.

Nonetheless, it did work out well and I am always happy to see the good guys prevail while the bad guys turn tail and run, especially when no shots have to be exchanged on either side.

ForumSurfer
June 3, 2011, 05:18 PM
I'm glad that the pharmacist and his staff weren't harmed, and I applaud the man for defending his store.

Same here, but self defense ended once the threat retreated and left the store. He should not have followed the crook outside....if that is what happened. It is hard to tell by the way the article is worded.

merlinfire
June 3, 2011, 05:32 PM
Same here, but self defense ended once the threat retreated and left the store. He should not have followed the crook outside....if that is what happened. It is hard to tell by the way the article is worded.

Good point. If he'd shot the robber the pharmacist may have been in a bad way.

Browns Fan
June 3, 2011, 06:54 PM
I saw this on Fox news; they said that he got fired for it.

Zoogster
June 3, 2011, 07:05 PM
Browns Fan said: I saw this on Fox news; they said that he got fired for it.

No that was another pharmacist a week ago, named Jeremy Hoven in Michigan who had a robber holding a gun in someone's face. Different footage and that guy worked at a Wallgreens.
This story is about Mike Donohue.

Wallgreens and CVS and similar chain stores often fire their pharmacists if they defend themselves or others with a firearm.


This story is about a private owned pharmacy that does not appear to be a chain store and is named 'Bob Johnson's Pharmacy'. The article also refers to it as "his store". He is either the owner or the manager/pharmacist, not just a disposable employee working in a large chain store like Jeremy Hoven was at Wallgreens.
My take from the story is that Mike Donohue is in charge of the store, installs his own security upgrades as necessary (like the cameras and glass), and is probably the sole pharmacist working with assistants.


Lesson that criminals will understand? Rob chain stores that fire people and don't allow self defense, mom & pop stores are dangerous to victimize.

Neverwinter
June 4, 2011, 10:02 AM
Lesson that criminals will understand? Rob chain stores that fire people and don't allow self defense, mom & pop stores are dangerous to victimize.
Lesson to armed consumers? Shop in the chain stores because the ones that rob those don't expect armed resistance. I want the criminal in and out with the least amount of contact and shots fired, ideally zero.

Kliegl
June 4, 2011, 03:19 PM
Bah, as an armed consumer, it is your duty to plug someone that holds the place up with a gun, in my opinion. I mean, sure, you could get shot, but, if you don't do anything, you will hate yourself for the rest of your life, because that is one moment when you COULD have made a difference, and didn't.

Double Naught Spy
June 4, 2011, 03:29 PM
Good point. If he'd shot the robber the pharmacist may have been in a bad way.

I am sure that may depend on state laws. In the Oklahoma pharmacy robbery and conviction of the pharmacist for murder, the DA specfically said the pharmacist was within his rights and the law to chase down the armed robber who took flight and attempting to stop him because he was considered a threat to the public. Self defense includes the defense of others.

earlthegoat2
June 4, 2011, 03:51 PM
Only a matter of time before the victims will start shooting first instead of trying to give the robbers orders.

azmjs
June 4, 2011, 04:59 PM
One hopes that the lesson has been learned that there's a difference between shooting someone in self defense and executing an incapacitated person.

ForumSurfer
June 4, 2011, 06:11 PM
Bah, as an armed consumer, it is your duty to plug someone that holds the place up with a gun, in my opinion. I mean, sure, you could get shot, but, if you don't do anything, you will hate yourself for the rest of your life, because that is one moment when you COULD have made a difference, and didn't.

Depends entirely on the situation and you can't use that as a general rule. You may harm more innocent people in the crossfire for instance if there are dozens of people there. Then you've done nothing but make a bad situation worse.

Zoogster
June 4, 2011, 06:31 PM
azmjs said:

One hopes that the lesson has been learned that there's a difference between shooting someone in self defense and executing an incapacitated person.

And that is yet another story completely unrelated to the linked story.


Clearly some people don't actually read what the story is before commenting..


The pharmacist convicted for executing a downed robber was Jerome Jay Ersland of Oklahoma City.

This story is about Mike Donohue of Seattle Washington.


One guy comments about it being Jeremy Hoven, and another just a few posts later about it being Jerome Jay Ersland.
While anyone that even read part of the article or watched the video would know it was neither case.
Beware of the one liners from people that didn't read the article. :neener:

There is a large number of pharmacists being robbed across the country, and so several different current stories about pharmacists who responded with firearms of their own.

Kliegl
June 4, 2011, 06:57 PM
Depends entirely on the situation and you can't use that as a general rule. You may harm more innocent people in the crossfire for instance if there are dozens of people there. Then you've done nothing but make a bad situation worse.

I can use wanting to protect the innocent against evil as a general rule. Obviously, individual situations will vary, but that really wasn't my point, and I thank you kindly for not twisting my meaning.

onfloat
June 4, 2011, 07:24 PM
Good on the pharmacist! Hopefully more follow his example.

Double Naught Spy
June 5, 2011, 01:00 AM
And that is yet another story completely unrelated to the linked story.


Clearly some people don't actually read what the story is before commenting..


The pharmacist convicted for executing a downed robber was Jerome Jay Ersland of Oklahoma City.

This story is about Mike Donohue of Seattle Washington.

Both pharmacists chased robbers from their stores. Ersland fired at his robber, never hitting him, but the DA said his actions were justified up until that time. Donohue chased a robber out and it was stated above that he might have been in a lot of trouble had he shot the robber since the robber was not longer a threat once he ran. That simply isn't a universal truth and will possibly vary by state law since a fleeing armed robber most certainly can be considered to be a threat to the public.

See, reading the whole thread did indeed happen and the comments were relevant.

earlthegoat2
June 5, 2011, 01:48 AM
As far as I am concerned, if someone points a gun at me they are a threat whether or not the gun is still pointed at me.

Neverwinter
June 5, 2011, 02:13 PM
I can use wanting to protect the innocent against evil as a general rule. Obviously, individual situations will vary, but that really wasn't my point, and I thank you kindly for not twisting my meaning.
His response was to the words as written. There was no "twisting" of your original text: "as an armed consumer, it is your duty to plug someone that holds the place up with a gun, in my opinion".

If the pharmacist had shot the fleeing robber, I hope that it would have been done so in accordance with state and local law. No sense in giving more ammo to the antis.

gym
June 5, 2011, 09:00 PM
He can always give the perp a pain killer, if he has to shoot him.

Grayrock
June 6, 2011, 06:23 PM
Good one, gym!

So I guess he did not get fired... still burns me up about the Wallgreens guy- http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fired-walgreens-gun-toting-michigan-pharmacist-filled-robbers/story?id=13705438

steelerdude99
June 6, 2011, 09:49 PM
Zoogster:
> I saw this on Fox news; they said that he got fired for it.
> No that was another pharmacist a week ago, named Jeremy Hoven in
> Michigan who had a robber holding a gun in someone's face.
> Different footage and that guy worked at a Wallgreens.
> This story is about Mike Donohue.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fired-walgreens-gun-toting-michigan-pharmacist-filled-robbers/story?id=13705438

Just remember, a chain like Walgreens is interested in avoiding a lawsuit not protecting their employees. Having a "policy" of not allowing employees to be armed protects the the chain's assets. They have no regrets about firing the person who just saved lives by saying "They ignored policy".

chuck

Kliegl
June 6, 2011, 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kliegl View Post
I can use wanting to protect the innocent against evil as a general rule. Obviously, individual situations will vary, but that really wasn't my point, and I thank you kindly for not twisting my meaning.
His response was to the words as written. There was no "twisting" of your original text: "as an armed consumer, it is your duty to plug someone that holds the place up with a gun, in my opinion".

If the pharmacist had shot the fleeing robber, I hope that it would have been done so in accordance with state and local law. No sense in giving more ammo to the antis.

Exactly. I didn't say he HAD to. I didn't say he should do it with hundreds of people milling around. I didn't say he should do it if there were other ways. Rather, I said it was your duty to stop someone holding up others. Sometimes you can't do your duty, but, if you don't carry to protect yourself and other innocents around you, you shouldn't carry at all, and this sort of selfish attitude some of the people on this thread seem to have disgusts me.

Apocalypse-Now
June 6, 2011, 10:01 PM
lots of pharmacists getting in gunfights in the news lately....:eek:

Twmaster
June 7, 2011, 02:29 AM
The difference between the two first mentioned Pharmacists is they stopped once the threat was gone.

Mr. Ersland, here in Oklahoma stepped over the line. Not only did he pursue the gunman out into a busy city street but he fired on him.

Then went back inside and unload 5 shots from a 380 into a downed suspect. That got him a murder conviction. He did himself no help by both lying to the police and media.

Personally, if you partake in a robbery and your vic caps you, well, you got what you had coming. Karma is a harsh mistress.

I'm not condoning what Ersland did. However, I do not think he should have been found guilty of murder.

The other two guys have my respect for standing up to these thugs.

kayak-man
June 7, 2011, 07:50 PM
OK, this was just a couple hours away from me. Thanks for bringing this up. I feel like this state has slowly been getting "worse." There were a couple shootings in tacoma a few weeks ago, and a girl was stabbed not too far from where I go to school.

OK, back on track.

One of the things that I took away from this is to be aware of where you do your shopping. Fred Meyer, Central Market, and Walmart all have pharmacies. When possible, I try to carry a full sized gun there instead of the J-frame. I also crank up the Situational Awareness a bit more than usual when I'm in those places.

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

FourTeeFive
June 7, 2011, 07:55 PM
This is becoming more and more of a problem here in WA. And some of the clinics with pharmacies are becoming victim disarmament zones. Check out this sign (which I think is particularly sleazy since it tries to infer this is condoned by the state when it is not):

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w4/fourteefive/PeaceHealthWeapon.jpg

Double Naught Spy
June 7, 2011, 09:55 PM
It may be "sleazy" as you say, but is not necessarily in error. They weaseled it properly. With that said, does the signage carry the weight of law in WA? In order words, does the signage make carrying on the property trespassing because it is posted?

Grayrock
June 7, 2011, 10:16 PM
So when the BG starts striding in to rob you, he'll see the PeaceHealth Medical Group sign and say- "Oh crud- I can't take my gun in there" and turn around and leave-

yeah- RIGHT!!!

FourTeeFive
June 7, 2011, 10:19 PM
It may be "sleazy" as you say, but is not necessarily in error. They weaseled it properly. With that said, does the signage carry the weight of law in WA? In order words, does the signage make carrying on the property trespassing because it is posted?

I would say yes as it is a privately owned facility that is stating you can't bring a weapon inside.

Interestingly the facility with this sign has had their pharmacy held up twice and they still don't have any form of security for the building. And, as you can see, employees are forbidden to have weapons on the premises.

It doesn't say whose "security personnel" are allowed. What would it take to call myself security personnel?

Neverwinter
June 8, 2011, 10:31 PM
Exactly. I didn't say he HAD to. I didn't say he should do it with hundreds of people milling around. I didn't say he should do it if there were other ways. Rather, I said it was your duty to stop someone holding up others. Sometimes you can't do your duty, but, if you don't carry to protect yourself and other innocents around you, you shouldn't carry at all, and this sort of selfish attitude some of the people on this thread seem to have disgusts me.
That isn't selfishness, it's rational self-interest. The first and foremost value is in one's own life, not in service of others' lives. My gun and my training are the fruits of my labor. What entitles these people to benefit from that? Where is the personal responsibility? Why have they not taken their own measures to prepare?

If you are still confused about this philosophy, you can pick up Ayn Rand's books for a much more in-depth explanation.

ForumSurfer
June 9, 2011, 10:02 AM
If you are still confused about this philosophy, you can pick up Ayn Rand's books for a much more in-depth explanation.I was forced into reading a few in a college course. I didn't like the philosophy behind them. The professor was borderline maniacal regarding Rand and any objectivity led to public belittling. I just smiled, did what I had to do and registered an official complaint (or two) after the class was over. Personally, I'd rather you just go ahead and shoot me than read any more Rand...ever.

I do see your point. I would be reluctant to help others in a situation like this, but not for your reasons. My reason is simply that I may make a bad situation worse. It depends entirely on the circumstance. In a theoretical hold up my life is on the line, too. I would take action, but only if I feel that I am making my chances of survival better by acting. My survival and my family's survival is my goal. If I help everyone else in the process, so be it. If I witness the holdup from outside, the best course of action would be to call 911. They will do a better job than I could do since they are trained for hostage situations. My training involves nothing more than hitting my target, which is about 1/10th (or less) of the skill-set needed in a hostage situation.

Grayrock
September 12, 2011, 07:42 PM
Now it seems Wallgrens has a federal suit on its hands:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fired-walgreens-gun-toting-michigan-pharmacist-filled-robbers/story?id=13705438

feedthehogs
September 13, 2011, 09:38 AM
Without knowing what the policies are as Walgreens won't release them at this point, I can only guess that carrying guns by employees is prohibited.

I can also only speculate that if this is the case and the pharmacists violated that policy, he can be terminated legally.

It will be interesting to see if his attorney tries to turn this into a civil rights case as would be my only guess as a way to proceed and nullify corporate policy that gets well explained and most of the time employees sign a sheet stating these policies have been told to them and they understand.

I sold my business after 32 years and retired. Bored after a year, I decided to go into consulting and was offered a number of positions with large corporate companies who's policies stated that no guns were allowed on the property. I turned everyone of the offers down.

My civil liberties are not dictated by corporate world policies, corporate attorneys and ambulance chasing attorneys looking for a quick buck.

Sadly though most will give up their liberties for security. In this case security is a job.

Fishslayer
September 13, 2011, 09:50 PM
Lesson to armed consumers? Shop in the chain stores because the ones that rob those don't expect armed resistance. I want the criminal in and out with the least amount of contact and shots fired, ideally zero.


That used to be the "rule." Give the money & they leave. In recent years too many shooting for sport, pleasure, initiation, whatever, for me to assume they'll leave when they have the cash.

oneounceload
September 13, 2011, 10:05 PM
If more would start shooting these worthless scum, the world would be a better place

oneounceload
September 14, 2011, 10:49 AM
Very true, but sometimes you really do have to swat the fly

Double Naught Spy
September 14, 2011, 10:55 AM
The problem is, they aren't flies.

Grayrock
March 12, 2012, 12:40 PM
Has anyone seen any followup to the Jeremy Hoven saga? What happened to the lawsuit?

antiquus
March 12, 2012, 01:16 PM
Donno, I'd be interested to know too. Hoven's case is about the clearest, cleanest defensive use I've seen lately. The local dept's Lt. said he would have done the same thing Hoven did.

The other one that comes to mind is the Aldi's shooting in Milwaukee, good that it happened so soon after WI started giving out carry permits. Nazir Al-Mujaahid kept his head, waited for the clean shot, and hit the perp cleanly several times. Now he can't get his gun back from the cops.

wannabeagunsmith
March 12, 2012, 05:53 PM
Glad to hear about this!!

Double Naught Spy
June 2, 2014, 08:30 PM
Has anyone seen any followup to the Jeremy Hoven saga? What happened to the lawsuit?

Donno, I'd be interested to know too. Hoven's case is about the clearest, cleanest defensive use I've seen lately. The local dept's Lt. said he would have done the same thing Hoven did.

Well, had the Lt. been employed as Hoven was, then he would be just as fired and would have lost his appeal as well. Hoven was still in violation of Walgreen's policy before the event happened and his firing was upheld by the court.

http://www.freep.com/article/20140602/NEWS06/306020141/pharmacist-self-defense-walgreens-michigan

barnbwt
June 2, 2014, 11:07 PM
"I want the criminal in and out with the least amount of contact and shots fired, ideally zero."
Yeah, and let's carry that same logic outside the store, too, since it works so well :rolleyes:.

TCB

Blackstone
June 3, 2014, 07:49 AM
Kosick says local residents are solidly behind his client. "I'd say 95 percent are in favor of what he did. It's really outraged people. Not just gun advocates but people on the street. They stop and tell me they'd have done the same thing, only they wouldn't have missed. They're outraged by what Walgreen has done. They're talking boycott, saying they will take their business to CVS or Wal-Mart."
Quite right, if these pharmacy chains fire employees for defending themselves and the store, out of fear of a lawsuit (ie. money), they don't deserve the money that customers bring in.

Double Naught Spy
June 3, 2014, 08:35 AM
Quite right, if these pharmacy chains fire employees for defending themselves and the store...

Most aren't fired for defending the stores. They are fired for bringing contraband to work. However, most also have in place policies that employees are not to defend the store either.

HexHead
June 3, 2014, 08:47 AM
I said it was your duty to stop someone holding up others. Sometimes you can't do your duty, but, if you don't carry to protect yourself and other innocents around you, you shouldn't carry at all, and this sort of selfish attitude some of the people on this thread seem to have disgusts me.

With your attitude, you should be a cop. Be disgusted all you want, but my gun is to protect me and mine. Period. I'm not stepping into the legal morass over people I probably wouldn't associate with. Everyone has the same opportunities we have to take steps to defend themselves, ie carry permit, gun. If they choose to be sheep, let them be shorn.

RustyShackelford
June 3, 2014, 08:49 AM
In my metro area, thefts & armed robberies are common. Drug stores & medical offices being targeted by high strung junkies or gangs were in the local media a lot. Law enforcement task forces & special narcotics detectives helped curb a few of the high profile incidents but it's still a issue. :(
I recall a retired LE/G-armed security officer in the space coast area of Florida who smoke-checked a drug addict who pulled a armed robbery. He ran into the drug store, pointed a gun at the pharmacist(private business not a chain). The plain clothes security officer quietly drew a pistol & got behind the thug.

The security plan worked well in that event. The incident with John Egland(check spelling) in Oklahoma City OK is good example of what not to do in a drug store robbery. :uhoh:
England(reported as a USAF veteran & CCW license holder), shot at 2 young hold up men. He chased a robber out of the drug store then returned, reportedly shooting the downed subject a few more times. :eek:
This event was recorded on a few CCTV cameras & the crime scene material helped get the small business owner convicted. He's now in a state prison in OK.

Rusty

jerkface11
June 3, 2014, 09:15 AM
That used to be the "rule." Give the money & they leave. In recent years too many shooting for sport, pleasure, initiation, whatever, for me to assume they'll leave when they have the cash.

People don't rob drug stores for money. They are after pills. So they're either high or in withdrawls while holding the place up making them more erratic and dangerous than a normal criminal.

pendennis
June 3, 2014, 10:25 AM
I suppose that Hoven could appeal to the full court. The decision is from a judicial panel, and not the full court.

Hoven was an at will employee, and knowingly violated Walgreen's corporate policy.

While there's a Second Amendment issue here, there are also the private property rights of Walgreen's.

This is not a good test case, and it shouldn't be viewed as a setback for Second Amendment rights.

texasgun
June 3, 2014, 01:28 PM
note: general policy of stores/banks is for their employees NOT to resist (and certainly not to engage in a gunfight) an armed robber and just hand over the $$/drugs or whatever.

the stores/banks are INSURED and the insurance will reimburse them. Risking a gunfight with customers in the cross-fire over a bottle of painkillers / a few thousand $ is not worth it.

once the robbers have left - 911 gets called and the cops handle it. given that stores are video-recorded the offenders often get caught later...

I for my part would prefer to be in a quick "in and out" robbery versus being caught in the crossfire between the robbers and the pharmacist...

Grayrock
June 3, 2014, 01:43 PM
But what about this part?
That used to be the "rule." Give the money & they leave. In recent years too many shooting for sport, pleasure, initiation, whatever, for me to assume they'll leave when they have the cash.

once the robbers have left - 911 gets called
Assuming there is anyone left to call 911.

In the Hoven case wasn't one of the perps walking employees into the back room with a gun to their head? There is no money or pills in the back room.

Madcap_Magician
June 3, 2014, 03:09 PM
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

AWAKEN THE DREAMING THREAD!

Thanks, thread necromancers.

texasgun
June 3, 2014, 03:31 PM
yes. that risks exists.

however: IF Walgreens/CVS would allow their pharmacists to carry guns and they engage in a firefight with an armed robber.... and a customer gets injured or killed by a round from the pharmacist. Walgreens or CVS would be sued for MILLIONS and no insurance company would be willing to insure Walgreens for that /or at a very high premium.

Choosing to go "gun free" doesn't expose them to these significant risks or higher insurance premiums. simple as that.

Double Naught Spy
June 3, 2014, 05:58 PM
In the Hoven case wasn't one of the perps walking employees into the back room with a gun to their head? There is no money or pills in the back room.

How do you know that there are no money in pills in the back room? The back room is often where the safe is.

Here is a vid...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fired-walgreens-gun-toting-michigan-pharmacist-filled-robbers/story?id=13705438

FYI, the video says the manager was taken hostage and taken to the back of the STORE where Hoven was working...and Hoven works where all the pills are.

jerkface11
June 3, 2014, 06:42 PM
Quite a few people seem to be willing to assume someone pointing a gun at them isn't going to kill them.

Vern Humphrey
June 3, 2014, 08:14 PM
Interesting. Many years ago, I used to shoot muzzle loaders with a club in Georgia. One of the members was a retired doctor from New York City.

He told of what he had to go through to get a concealed carry permit -- until he wised up and put on his application, "I am a doctor and carry drugs in my bag.'

RustyShackelford
June 3, 2014, 11:13 PM
I disagree with post #48.
There have been documented thefts/crimes in my metro area where junkies or street gangs ran into drug stores/24hr marts & snatched only drugs(drug related materials). No $, no booze, no tobacco, just pills, meth ingredients or narcotics.
The local media shows the videos. :rolleyes:
I'd add that the late James Cirello, the well known NYPD detective & former FLETC www.fletc.gov instructor(US Customs Service) wrote that he had a lethal force event within 15 minutes of going on a anti-robbery detail at a store. :eek:

You(as a armed citizen or license holder) can not always predict how or when a armed robbery occur. I watch the security mirrors & scan lots(mostly at night) when I go into Walgreens, CVS, etc.
Being alert & aware of your surroundings prevents any surprises. ;)

texasgun
June 3, 2014, 11:51 PM
it's also worth mentioning that if you conceal carry and get caught in a store robbery ... and pro-actively engage the shooter and end up hurting someone uninvolved... well... you're on the hook. (not necessarily criminally) ... but you'll get sued your pants off.

Double Naught Spy
June 4, 2014, 09:28 AM
Quite a few people seem to be willing to assume someone pointing a gun at them isn't going to kill them.

Tell that to the businesses that don't allow armed employees.

Vern Humphrey
June 4, 2014, 04:39 PM
however: IF Walgreens/CVS would allow their pharmacists to carry guns and they engage in a firefight with an armed robber.... and a customer gets injured or killed by a round from the pharmacist. Walgreens or CVS would be sued for MILLIONS and no insurance company would be willing to insure Walgreens for that /or at a very high premium.
So it's much, much better if the armed robber simply murders the pharmacist, right?

Green Lantern
June 4, 2014, 04:56 PM
They have no regrets about firing the person who just saved lives by saying "They ignored policy".

They have no regrets about firing anyone, ever. Especially if there's a new pharmacy graduate/minimum-wage tech they can replace them with.

Lesson to armed consumers? Shop in the chain stores because the ones that rob those don't expect armed resistance. I want the criminal in and out with the least amount of contact and shots fired, ideally zero.

1) Just because a pharmacist works in a chain, does not mean they won't carry. Where do these stories of pharmacists being fired for standing up to robbers come from, otherwise.
2) Even in independents where pharmacists can CCW, IMO the savvy ones "want the criminal in and out with the least amount of contact and shots fired, ideally zero" TOO.
3) A chain that obviously (well, if one reads the news) has a no-carry, no-resist policy should be a much more tempting target to a robber than an independent, which COULD e the same but very well may not be. Plus, chains....mm, GENERALLY do more volume, hence have more drugs.

My sincere apologies to any of you stuck in the hell of working for a chain drugstore but I calls it like I sees it. :/

If you enjoyed reading about "CNN Article about armed-Pharmacist defending drugstore" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!