Video of fired Walgreens pharmacist who shot in self defense

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/09/video_of_benton_harbor_pharmac.html

"Hoven, 36, had a concealed-pistol permit when he fired his weapon at an armed robber inside the Benton Harbor store where he worked since 2006.

Hoven says he was fired because he violated Walgreens' “non-escalation” policy, but had never been told about the policy.

He filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids last month. His attorneys say he fired his weapon in self-defense, likely saving his own life and lives of other workers.
The robbery happened around 4:30 a.m. on May 8. "

Whether or not an employer can fire people for having guns on its premises, I think Hoven did the right thing. Better to lose your job than to lose your life. If I worked in a high-risk job, like a pizza driver, or a cab driver, or late-night retail, or a host of other jobs, I'd be armed no matter what the company policy was.

Company policy is to protect the company, not the employees, who are expendable.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Glassunion]

2. Oh the humanity!!!

Oh wait... I mean: Oh the liability!!!

Far better to run the risk of a dead employee than to have some uncouth, tacky toter running around the store like he is Rambo...

Did you see that move he did right before he was shot at? He was dialing 911 like a boss!!!

:sarcasm:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. " Company policy is to protect the company, not the employees, who are expendable."

I disagree with that statement. I think the genuine intent is to limit liability in case a worker injures another employee or a customer. Perhaps the solution is to ensure the law states if Employee X of Company Y commits Act Z that only Employee Y is liable unless he was acting upon the instructions of his employer.

I also think it was born of a time when criminals just took what they wanted and left but nowadays we read so many stories of workers being executed even after they've been subdued and/or the money taken.

That being said I disagree with private businesses countermanding people's individual rights. I would expect due outrage if an employer made voting GOP as a condition of continued employment.

Also, if the company is going to prohibit self-defense then it assumes total defense of its employees. I would expect the company to be liable for an injury suffered by an employee or customer because those individuals were not allowed to protect themselves.

[Atypical Liberal]

4. "I think the genuine intent is to limit liability..."

I disagree with that statement. I think the genuine intent is to limit liability in case a worker injures another employee or a customer.

Precisely. It is to protect the company from liability.

The employees are expendable.

[SteveM]

5. I think your idea to allow the company to cover its nether reaches is good...

as long as it does not involve punishing the employee acting in self-defense.

"That being said I disagree with private businesses countermanding people's individual rights. I would expect due outrage if an employer made voting GOP as a condition of continued employment."

I think it ironic that these kinds of policies to fire an employee who exercised his/her right to self-defense are made by large corporations who by and large support the GOP!

As you say, let the onus, if there is one, fall upon the employee for what actions occur; otherwise, the employee should be protected from firing/demotion simply because he acted in self-defense.

(Did you get 'X' and 'Y' confused?)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Yeah. a little X / Y transposition action going on there.

Thanks for courteously pointing that out.

I say make each party responsible for their own acts. If the company is going to assume safety for its customers and employees by forbidding employees from acting in self-defense (I presume that's their argument) then I would expect they make similar assumptions if they fail to adequately defend customers and employees.

But if I had an employee I have no right to command that person to be defenseless unless I could guarantee their safety. At the same time if that employee carelessly hurt someone they did so outside of what I as an employer required of them.

[iverglas]

18. failed the bar exam again

But if I had an employee I have no right to command that person to be defenseless unless I could guarantee their safety. At the same time if that employee carelessly hurt someone they did so outside of what I as an employer required of them.

Apart from this commanding to be defenceless bullshit misrepresentation ...

You might want to spend a term or two studying vicarious liability. Here's a teensy intro for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability#Employers.27_liability

If an employer authorizes an employee to carry a firearm on its premises and to use it at the employee's discretion for purposes authorized by the employer, the employer will be liable, at the very least, for harm resulting from negligent use.

[iverglas]

17. can you argue a case without misrepresenting?

That being said I disagree with private businesses countermanding people's individual rights. I would expect due outrage if an employer made voting GOP as a condition of continued employment.

And of course you could get all outraged if an employer made non-possession of firearms on the employee's own time and off the employer's premises a condition of employment.

No one's rights were "countermanded" here (whatever that might mean).

The employee accepted the terms of the employment, all of which were perfectly lawful.

Also, if the company is going to prohibit self-defense then it assumes total defense of its employees.

Again: can you really not argue your case without misrepresenting?

The company prohibits the possession and use of firearms by employees on its premises.

It does not prohibit self-defence.

And even if it did: the employees are free to leave. They are not comparable to prisoners, whose safety the state does assume responsibility for.

I would expect the company to be liable for an injury suffered by an employee or customer because those individuals were not allowed to protect themselves.

I would expect you to fail the bar exam.


The interesting question would be: how exercised would you get if WalGreen's required its pharmacists to carry firearms?

[PavePusher]

20. Of course, no-one is requesting anything like such a requirement.

Speaking of "misrepresenting"....

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

7. If you want to enforce that kind of company policy, it's essential to get a signed acknowledgment...

...from every employee to prove that he or she has read and understands the policy.

If you try to impose something like that retroactively, you're begging to be sued for wrongful termination.

[dtexdem]

8. A company has the right to adopt and enforce such a policy, but ...

it has the DUTY to adequately inform its employees in a timely manner.

[spin]

9. I'd rather be fired than dead ...

or suffering from serious injuries for the rest of my life.

[one-eyed fat man]

10. Walgreens didn't expect everyone to see it.

In the latest twist, Walgreens has demanded the video be suppressed.

After being fired for defending himself, the pharmacist sued Walgreens. The company has filed an emergency motion to keep the video confidential claiming, "“seriously jeopardizes Walgreens' ability to receive a fair trial.”

In court filings, Walgreens' attorney said the video has been distributed everywhere, which will cause harm to Walgreens' business reputation and interests.

Apparently, the corporate legal department has "crunched the numbers" and determined dead employees are not as damaging to "Walgreens' business reputation and interests."

[DonP]

11. If Walgreen's has a community relations manager that's smarter than their lawyers ...

They could realize this could be a gold mine for positive press for them. It will be far less expensive and a better community relations and customer friendly move to "suspend" the pharmacist for a short period, provide him with free counselling, then return him to work in another store after a few weeks.

No big press conferences needed, it's just the right thing to do and the smart thing to do.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. WOW, all three employees reacted very admirably to this situation.

Not only the pharmacist, but the guy that grabs the gun the robber dropped, did great, as did the guy that thought to lock up the front doors, in case the robbers returned. Glass is little protection against a gunshot, and he knew the robbers were armed, so he risked his ass going up there to bar the doors.

Great job all around. Walgreens should be proud of these employees.

[Logical]

13. My company does not allow me to CCW at work. I would expect and agree...

that they should fire me if I did.

No problem breaking the rules, just be willing to pay the price.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Same here.

I know that if I ever have to use it, my job is gone. I won't use it just to protect company money. Only if it looks like I am about to get hurt.

If the company were to let me get away with being armed, and it became public, their insurance rates would skyrocket. They would have to get rid of me.

[pipoman]

15. I don't necessarily agree

that their insurance would "skyrocket". I maintained errors and omissions insurance for licensed detectives for years. The difference for armed vs. unarmed was only about 6%. The actuarial risk has to be based on statistical possibilities, the statistical risk of a person with a ccw carrying, has to be low.

[AzNick]

16. That's when the NRA does a good job

And provides a good lawyer.

I will follow up and see where this goes.

[aikoaiko]

19. Its looks like Walgreens is denying self-defense had anything to do with the termination.

If they maintain that position, its going to be hard to resolve.

If it really was the act of self-defense (whether because of an unauthorized firearm, or "escalation", then I think Wal-greens should have simply done a letter of reprimand. That would have been the smart move.