CNN Article about armed-Pharmacist defending drugstore

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drug store crimes; case history(legal precedent)....

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

AWAKEN THE DREAMING THREAD!

Thanks, thread necromancers.
 
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.
 
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/fire...n-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.
 
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.'
 
Post #48, documented events....

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. ;)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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. :/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top