Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: T Cro ® on May 18, 2011, 09:03:06 PM
-
This one hits close to home for me as this is where I live.... Sort of; it is the other side of town from where I live.
Walgreens pharmacist fired for saving co-workers.
On May 8th Jeremy Hoven, a night shift pharmacist at a Benton Township, Michigan Walgreens, fired his legally carried pistol to defend the lives of himself and his co-workers from two armed assailants that attempted to force the co-workers into a back room. The assailants fled the scene and he and his co-workers escaped injury.
Mr. Hoven has since been fired by Walgreens.
Link to story: http://heraldpalladium.com/articles/...ws/4820927.txt (http://heraldpalladium.com/articles/...ws/4820927.txt)
Link to Walgreens' Consumer Relations page: http://www.walgreens.com/marketing/c...sp?h1=Customer (http://www.walgreens.com/marketing/c...sp?h1=Customer) service &h2=Other service&h3=Corporate&h4=consumer
Please tell Walgreens how you feel about their decision.
-
I wonder if Walgrens has a store policy against employees carrying? If so, and he knew about, then regardless of his license he would likely be fired. If not, then they are certainly in the wrong. I happen to feel he did the right thing.
-
The PR fallout is gonna be brutal though....
-
When I was in college, the first time, I delivered pizza. One of my co-workers was fired for fighting back when someone tried to mug him. Josh had no weapon with him, he just beat this guy silly, then called the cops and an ambulance. He got fired because the official company policy was do not fight, just do what they want.
-
May 19, 2011
Dear Tony,
Thank you for taking your time to contact our Corporate Offices. We appreciate hearing from our customers and value all comments received.
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.
Again, thank you for contacting our corporate office. We truly appreciate you taking the time to share your comments.
Sincerely,
Rori R
Consumer Response Representative
Ref # 3083779
-
Ask the other employees how they feel about not being at the mercy of bad guys with guns. The response from Walgreens does not mention a no gun policy. Spin? It only " strongly advises". I'm not sure I would want to work for a company that advises you to submit to terror and murder.
-
Big corporations do not care if they put their employees in jepardy. Those decision makers are asleep in their beds when the bad guys are around. Of course, if an employee gets wacked, they wring their hands and talk about the tragedy while enjoying legal isolation because the criminal was not an employee. Every statement I have ever read includes "we do everything they can for the safety of the employees and customers". What exactly are they doing? Nothing!
-
.... Every statement I have ever read includes "we do everything they can for the safety of the employees and customers". What exactly are they doing? Nothing!
Benton Harbor is sadly riddled with crime due to many facets including but not limited to drug use, and unemployment and has many 3rd generation welfare burdens...... If Walgreens cares so deeply for the safety of it's employ and customer base then why in the world do they not employ 24 hour armed security measures in high risk locations such as this?
-
Tell that to the employees who died in these incidents at the hands of Paul Dennis Reid:
Captain D's
At Captain D's on Lebanon Road in Donelson, Tennessee, on the morning of February 16, 1997, Reid entered the store before opening, under the guise of applying for a job. Once inside, he forced employee Sarah Jackson, 16, and the manager, Steve Hampton, 25, into the restaurant's cooler and bound their hands and feet. Reid forced the two to lie on the floor and then shot them execution style. Money, including large amounts of change, was found missing from the cash register. Reid used the cash from this robbery as a down payment on a car two days later.
McDonald's
At McDonald's on Lebanon Road in Hermitage, Tennessee, on the evening of March 23, 1997, Reid approached two employees behind the store after closing. At gunpoint, he forced them back into the restaurant. Reid shot three employees to death execution style in the storeroom: Andrea Brown, 17; Ronald Santiago, 27; and Robert A. Sewell, Jr., 23. Reid attempted to shoot José Antonio Ramirez Gonzalez, but his weapon failed. Reid then stabbed Gonzalez 17 times and left him for dead. Gonzalez avoided further attacks by lying completely still and pretending to be deceased. Reid then took US$3000 from the cash registers and fled.[6] When the scene was discovered, Gonzalez was taken to the hospital, treated, and ultimately survived. He eventually testified against Reid.
Baskin-Robbins
At Baskin-Robbins on Wilma Rudolph Boulevard in Clarksville, Tennessee, on the evening of April 23, 1997, Reid went to the door after closing and persuaded the employees to let him inside. Once inside, Reid kidnapped Angela Holmes, 21, and Michelle Mace, 16 and forced the two to Dunbar Cave State Park. Their bodies were discovered the next day on a lake shore with their throats cut.
-
When seconds count 911 is only minutes away.
-
When seconds count 911 is only minutes away.
But a 1911 could be seconds away. :)
Yeah it is always shoved under the rug, when victims fully comply with a criminal "and still get killed or injured". The stupid companies don't care about their employees or even their customers, they only care about their image "good or bad". I have no respect or tolerance for companies that won't allow an employee to protect themselves and others, you take a risk either way........comply and someone still dies, or empty a magazine in the piece of crap........I will take my chances with me and my weapon. Hell your still a victim either way!!!!
-
But a 1911 could be seconds away. :)
--Snip--
True dat.
I think I'll try my hand at boycotting Walgreens, my father has well over 20 prescriptions with them. Time to locate another pharm.
-
Benton Harbor is sadly riddled with crime due to many facets including but not limited to drug use, and unemployment and has many 3rd generation welfare burdens...... If Walgreens cares so deeply for the safety of it's employ and customer base then why in the world do they not employ 24 hour armed security measures in high risk locations such as this?
"...which strongly advises against confrontation of crime suspects."
A policy that enables armed criminal activity without threat of an armed response. What deters them if they think they can get away with it?
Armed crimes are greatly discouraged if there are legally armed citizens that the thugs may encounter (but we know that, too bad the policymakers couldn't care less).
JMHO
Dan
-
I’m certain this decision and decisions like it are made by the lawyers and believe that the corporation has less chance of law suit. What needs to happen is for people to sue these same companies for not allowing them to properly defend themselves.
-
I’m certain this decision and decisions like it are made by the lawyers and believe that the corporation has less chance of law suit. What needs to happen is for people to sue these same companies for not allowing them to properly defend themselves.
It's private property. Since the 1930's (I think) when the supreme court upheld that corporations are entitled to most of the same rights as individuals, including the right to own and dispose of property, there's not a durn thing to be done. The suit would get tossed as frivolous, citing private property. The other sad part is that the judge would likely tell the families of the deceased or wounded, "Well, he/she didn't have to work THERE, now did he/she?"
-
On May 8th Jeremy Hoven, a night shift pharmacist at a Benton Township, Michigan Walgreens, fired his legally carried pistol to defend the lives of himself and his co-workers from two armed assailants that attempted to force the co-workers into a back room. The assailants fled the scene and he and his co-workers escaped injury.
It seems to me the only thing that needs comment is that Mr. Hoven needs to improve his aim. They shouldn't have been able to flee the scene. An armed society is a polite society. ;)
-
I wrote that I won't do business with Walgreens until/unless they reverse their handling of this. I don't expect this to make much difference. I think it was Pizza Hut a similar thing to one of their delivery drivers a few years back.
-
FYI, the reply that T-Cro had is one of their canned responses. I know this because my message got the exact same reply even though I briefly addressed the response the T-Cro had.
-
And you expected anything different? Proves they don't care what a few radical gun nuts think. They dn't want you in their stores, anyway.
-
They want us to be sheep... kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident...
May 19, 2011
Dear Tony,
Thank you for taking your time to contact our Corporate Offices. We appreciate hearing from our customers and value all comments received.
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.
Again, thank you for contacting our corporate office. We truly appreciate you taking the time to share your comments.
Sincerely,
Rori R
Consumer Response Representative
Ref # 3083779
-
Sent Walgreens my boycott message.
-
Just another store to add to my list of "no go" along with all the other stores locally here that have silly "no firearms" signs posted, not too many though anymore here in Ohio.
-
Could be worse... they could ban patrons from legally carrying inside their stores, too. That's why I'll never patronize a California Pizza Kitchen.
Here's what needs to happen:
Everytime a business that doesn't allow it's employees to defend themselves is robbed, they all need to sue their employer. After all, by not permitting us to carry, they are taking it upon themselves to provide us with a safe work environment.
You can be damn sure that were I to be assaulted by a criminal (not a patient) here at my workplace (hospital,) I'd sue their pants off because of their no-weapons policy.
-
It is their right to not allow wepons on their property just as it is your right to not allow someone into your home.
-
It is their right to not allow wepons on their property just as it is your right to not allow someone into your home.
Just 'cause it is, don't mean it ought to be.
-
Just 'cause it is, don't mean it ought to be.
Say what? You don't think that we should have the right to allow or disallow weapons onto our property?
-
"He said he knows of no specific Walgreens policy barring employees from carrying lawfully concealed weapons at work"
I've sent Walgreens my boycott message and drafted an email to all of my gun toting friends.
-
These types of reports really get me. While law enforcement wants the average citizen to comply because they are not generally trained in combat tactics etc. This only means, you may, possibly survive relatively unscathed. I don't particularly care for those odds. While I don't have a pistol on me all the time, I am armed and would gladly accept termination for defending myself or another person. As unfortunate as that is, that is their right. Better to be alive and move to another job than dead or worse yet alive living with the knowledge that I could have kept someone else alive had I only acted.
-
Funny how some feel other's rights should be limited but not their own.
-
Say what? You don't think that we should have the right to allow or disallow weapons onto our property?
I don't believe that publicly traded corporations should have the same property rights as individuals, no. I feel the inside of a Walgreen's is more a public space than a private one. It should be legal to do anything inside a Walgreen's (employee or not) it is legal to do in the parking lot outside.
-
I don't believe that publicly traded corporations should have the same property rights as individuals, no. I feel the inside of a Walgreen's is more a public space than a private one. It should be legal to do anything inside a Walgreen's (employee or not) it is legal to do in the parking lot outside.
Funny how we pick and choose rights. I figure if it's their right to decide. If you don't like it don't go inside!!
-
Funny how we pick and choose rights. I figure if it's their right to decide. If you don't like it don't go inside!!
Of course we pick and choose rights. How else do we know which ones we have? A corporation is not an individual and should not be treated as such. They do need some rights, but they do not need to be treated as individuals under the law. IMO the supreme court case in the 1880's (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that upheld corporate personhood to a new level was a bad decision. An actual person can gather only so much influence, because people have expiration dates and physical needs (sleep, poop, eat, ride motorcycles) and a corporation has neither. How much influence and money and power could you appropriate if you never had to do anything other than make money, and as long as you continued to make money, you could live forever?
Further, if the corporation knows that the area has a history of crime (and they know, they always know) they should provide adequate security to their employees, should they choose to strip an employee of his/her right to self-defense. If they don't, they should be legally liable for injuries and deaths resulting from such a poor policy.
Look, it's not like you are going to offend the corporation's religious or ethical sensibilities by carrying a weapon. What you offend is their fear of lawsuits. If the inside of a Walgreen's was treated as the public space it is, Walgreen's couldn't get sued for firearms incidents. Nobody sues the city because that's where they were when they got assaulted.
-
A coprporation is a corporation of PEOPLE. Those people have rights.
A "publicly" traded company is funded by whom? PRIVATE individuals. It's not a public institution like a government entity. That is where our rights are violated. The gummint is supposed to protect our rights but that is the first place they are violated. Walgreen's is "publicly" traded but amongst PRIVATE individuals.they have the right to deny access to whom they choose. Don't like it? Don't do business there. But yu will still support the lcal gummint that denies you your rights in a truly publicly owned buildng. I find something drastically screwed up there.
-
Of course we pick and choose rights. How else do we know which ones we have? A corporation is not an individual and should not be treated as such. They do need some rights, but they do not need to be treated as individuals under the law. IMO the supreme court case in the 1880's (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that upheld corporate personhood to a new level was a bad decision. An actual person can gather only so much influence, because people have expiration dates and physical needs (sleep, poop, eat, ride motorcycles) and a corporation has neither. How much influence and money and power could you appropriate if you never had to do anything other than make money, and as long as you continued to make money, you could live forever?
I disagree... a right exists for everyone, or it's not a right. When you can start choosing rights, they become privileges, and eventually someone can decide what privileges you have, and which you don't. A Walgreens may be a public place, but it is a private business, and as such is entitled to the same rights any other private business would have. Would you deny a mom-and-pop store the right to choose whether or not to allow weapons in their store? How about when mom-and-pop owns 5 stores? Who decides the limit of stores owned before they become a 'huge corporation'? You or some other arbitrary figure?
You may not like it, but everyone has the same rights, regardless of if it's inconvenient for you....
-
It's not a matter of scale. It's a matter of being publicly traded. Yes, those people investing in that corporation are indeed private individuals. They don't (normally) get a vote on any policy or direction the company is thinking about going, you know that right? Their rights do not transfer to the corporation, because the corporation is it's own person. This is similar to the way you cannot transfer your rights to another person; say... you cannot give YOUR right to vote to someone who does not have that right.
When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they did not envision a world run by large, public corporations. Even the largest companies of their day were run by an individual or a person, and that person was responsible for the company. How is it not just painfully obvious that it is wrong for a company to be responsible for itself? How do you punish a company for wrong doing? You can't jail it. You can't execute it. It can't do community service. It feels no shame, no remorse, and no hope for a better job next time.
Corporate person is wrong, plain and simple.
If it were a mom and pop store, I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue. If it was, no, I wouldn't shop there. I do all I can to preserve those stores, normally, including driving eight miles out of my way to go to a locally owned "mom and pop drug shop" to get my son's prescriptions filled.
As for the guns being banned in public buildings thing? Maybe where you live. In Texas it is legal (as long as you have a permit to carry) to carry a concealed weapon into the capitol building in Austin, or any other gov't building in the state. Some of the bigger cities have city ordinances that prohibit carrying into a city hall meeting or something of that nature, but you can still carry in the building.
OFF-TOPIC, sorry.
Corporate person hood is wrong, therefore, Walgreen's should not have been allowed to fire that employee for exercising one of his constitutionally protected rights.
-
It's not a matter of scale. It's a matter of being publicly traded. Yes, those people investing in that corporation are indeed private individuals. They don't (normally) get a vote on any policy or direction the company is thinking about going, you know that right?
Yes I do know that, I also know that the stockholders vote for the CEO, CFO and the rest. Are you seriously suggesting that once a company goes public, that they are to cede their rights? Man, that would do wonders for our economy, as public corporations fled to other countries...
As for the guns being banned in public buildings thing? Maybe where you live. In Texas it is legal (as long as you have a permit to carry) to carry a concealed weapon into the capitol building in Austin, or any other gov't building in the state. Some of the bigger cities have city ordinances that prohibit carrying into a city hall meeting or something of that nature, but you can still carry in the building.
Most, if not all, public buildings here in CO are off limits to all firearms... Texas is looking better and better in my eyes...
OFF-TOPIC, sorry.
Corporate person hood is wrong, therefore, Walgreen's should not have been allowed to fire that employee for exercising one of his constitutionally protected rights.
Thats your opinion, and thankfully the USSC disagrees with you...
-
You are confusing "publicly traded" with "public sector". They are two totally different things.
the metro-that is the public sector. same with police, fire, etc. TAX funded.
Walgereen's Ford, Boeing, are publicly traded on the stock market but are NOT government agencies. They are not funded by tax dollars (you could argue Boeing is somewhat but they are still a private company).
You missed or do not remember the discussion we had last year about corporations having rights. Corporations may enter into contracts. Why? because the contracts are signed by what? PEOPLE. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and has said corporations have rights because corporations are people. people sit of the Boards of these companies and make the day to day decisions. Corps are not a machine that is out there doing things, they are people and those people have rights. Your rights do not go away because you sit on a board of a company. You still can pick and choose who to do business with and you can tell your employees they cannot wear a shirt that says, EFF YOU on it if they say you cannot, am I correct? yes, they may do that. They can require you to wear certain types of clothes, etc. Is that violating your 1st Amendment rights? NO, because you are on their property and what they say goes.
My employer says I may not even have a firearm in my car on their property and I must abide by that. It is their right, as it is their property.
Once you take away the rights of one, you take away the rights of all.
-
Whether I agree or disagree,thanks for an intelligent discussion! :thumbs:
-
My employer says I may not even have a firearm in my car on their property and I must abide by that. It is their right, as it is their property.
In a couple of states, the courts have said otherwise. :thumbs: Hopefully that common sense will spread.
-
In a couple of states, the courts have said otherwise. :thumbs: Hopefully that common sense will spread.
That's a tough one... CO law states that your car is an extension of your property. So in that case, who's property rights trump whose?
-
In a couple of states, the courts have said otherwise. :thumbs: Hopefully that common sense will spread.
Best idea ever!