Armed pharmacist shoots armed robber in WV.

[sechott]

http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/polic...-robber/nPFMC/

Not many details, I hope for an update soon.

[spaniel]

Glad the pharmAcist was ok...and does not work for one of the big chains.

My wife works in a CVS. They are not allowed to have weapons, and if robbed they cannot signal police until after the robber leaves or they are fired. Recently the same pharmacist was held up twice in a week. The company took no action to improve security or worker safety. He asked to be moved to a different shift and was denied. So he came to work he night after the second robbery...and was robbed at gunpoint for a third time.

[jmruth72]

Originally Posted by spaniel

Glad the pharmAcist was ok...and does not work for one of the big chains.

My wife works in a CVS. They are not allowed to have weapons, and if robbed they cannot signal police until after the robber leaves or they are fired. Recently the same pharmacist was held up twice in a week. The company took no action to improve security or worker safety. He asked to be moved to a different shift and was denied. So he came to work he night after the second robbery...and was robbed at gunpoint for a third time.

Oh h#&& no. I would have come to work armed after the first time. I would rather be alive and with out a job. Then dead because of some stupid policy. Just lost all respect I had for CVS. They may do a fair amount of good, but this to me more than totally counters all of that. My wife would also not be working there anymore.

[EireRogue]

CVS doesn't want the liability of authorizing an armed employee. However, the pharmacist has a great 'duty of care' lawsuit against CVS. If they can show CVS failed to upgrade security after the incident, denied him the opportunity to switch shifts and wouldn't let him protect himself, I'd hit them with workers comp claim, emotional distress, PTSD, any everything my lawyer could think of.

[nineteenelevenfan]

Originally Posted by spaniel

Glad the pharmAcist was ok...and does not work for one of the big chains.

My wife works in a CVS. They are not allowed to have weapons, and if robbed they cannot signal police until after the robber leaves or they are fired. Recently the same pharmacist was held up twice in a week. The company took no action to improve security or worker safety. He asked to be moved to a different shift and was denied. So he came to work he night after the second robbery...and was robbed at gunpoint for a third time.

Agreed. Similar thing happened at a Walgreens and they fired the pharmacist. Unreal. Company policy over doing the right thing. What are we becoming?

[joedel]

Pharmacies are becoming what liquor stores were in the 70's and 80's in terms of targets for armed robbers. Instead of stealing cash the thieves and drug-seekers are going after prescription pain medications.

[HT77]

Originally Posted by EireRogue

CVS doesn't want the liability of authorizing an armed employee. However, the pharmacist has a great 'duty of care' lawsuit against CVS. If they can show CVS failed to upgrade security after the incident, denied him the opportunity to switch shifts and wouldn't let him protect himself, I'd hit them with workers comp claim, emotional distress, PTSD, any everything my lawyer could think of.

Considering the state of our legal system today its easy to understand why employers aren't eager to authorize use of firearms for employees. The bottom line is as a society we are more concerned about the rights of the individual committing the crime than the victim. The victims protecting themselves will be sued and put out of business while the perp will maybe do a short sentence, a brief treatment program and then back to business.

[jmruth72]

Originally Posted by HT77

Considering the state of our legal system today its easy to understand why employers aren't eager to authorize use of firearms for employees. The bottom line is as a society we are more concerned about the rights of the individual committing the crime than the victim. The victims protecting themselves will be sued and put out of business while the perp will maybe do a short sentence, a brief treatment program and then back to business.

To me that just means if you have to shoot. Shoot to kill. That way it will be your word against that of a dead mans and he won't have a lot to say on the matter. Bad part is you just about can't go pee with out a camera watching. So either way you are screwed in this society. Wonder what will happen next and what it will take to get the term self-defense understood in proper terms by the worms that supposedly lead this country.

[spaniel]

Originally Posted by EireRogue

CVS doesn't want the liability of authorizing an armed employee. However, the pharmacist has a great 'duty of care' lawsuit against CVS. If they can show CVS failed to upgrade security after the incident, denied him the opportunity to switch shifts and wouldn't let him protect himself, I'd hit them with workers comp claim, emotional distress, PTSD, any everything my lawyer could think of.

My thoughts exactly, pharmacist should quit and find another job (not hard) and sue CVS. My wife has an interview on Monday, we are trying to get her out of there. I want her to carry "just in case" but she is not comfortable with it and having a gun when you are not comfortable with using it is worse than being unarmed.

We recently had a robbery near here in a national chain grocery store, where the robber took an employee hostage and tried to walk them back to where the money was. They encountered a manager, who was armed, and killed the robber when the gun was pointed at him. The manager was fired for having a gun. Now, it was all kept hush-hush, but to make a long story short it seemed from the way things went down that the manager was well compensated or majorly helped into another job if he didn't make a fuss. But that doesn't make it right, does it?

[WNC-shooter]

Just wondering.... if the perps know that it's OK for the employees to carry, wouldn't that just make them the first target? I'm thinking I'd be pretty easy for the BG to outdraw a fella going about his business. I can draw and fire a down 1 in much less than 1 second.

How would the store make sure the employee is capable of shooting back without killing an old lady in the next isle? Who gets to carry and who doesn't and who decides? I'm with the national chain on this one, at least until society gets a better handle on right-to-carry & stand-your-ground laws.

What if the pharmacist carries with the store's blessing, but doesn't shoot and someone is killed? Is the store or pharmacist liable because they didn't protect the patrons and saw no need for added security?

This isn't an easy topic.

[WNC-shooter]

Originally Posted by spaniel

They encountered a manager, who was armed, and killed the robber when the gun was pointed at him. The manager was fired for having a gun.

Oddly put. Are you sure he wasn't fired for discharging the weapon or killing someone with it? 'Having a gun' seems to be the lesser of the offenses.

[BDA45]

Originally Posted by HT77

Considering the state of our legal system today its easy to understand why employers aren't eager to authorize use of firearms for employees.

I agree with this, but for entirely different reasons. It would be unwise to "authorize" use of firearms. The trouble with "authorizing" something - you accept potential liability. How much training do you provide for Joey the meek pharmacist you authorize, and then does that training come under scrutiny as well when Joey pees himself and shoots some kid down aisle 6? Seems better to just not say anything, BUT even then at some point a pharmacist will defend himself and the legal system will allow the employer to be brought into the resulting lawsuit. That's the state of the legal system, IMO. What will eventually have to happen is your pharmacist will talk to you through bullet proof glass and pass your scripts through a steel drawer while the customers take the brunt of the abuse from angered and drug addled robbers who cannot find their way through the barriers. And yes, it will occur to some lawyer that if the barriers had not been there, the terrible crisis against innocent customers might not have happened.

[spaniel]

Originally Posted by WNC-shooter

Oddly put. Are you sure he wasn't fired for discharging the weapon or killing someone with it? 'Having a gun' seems to be the lesser of the offenses.

Simply being in posession of a gun was grounds for firing him. Whether he had actually used it, or only drawn it before the scum ran off, he would have been fired either way.

[spaniel]

Originally Posted by WNC-shooter

Just wondering.... if the perps know that it's OK for the employees to carry, wouldn't that just make them the first target? I'm thinking I'd be pretty easy for the BG to outdraw a fella going about his business. I can draw and fire a down 1 in much less than 1 second.

How would the store make sure the employee is capable of shooting back without killing an old lady in the next isle? Who gets to carry and who doesn't and who decides? I'm with the national chain on this one, at least until society gets a better handle on right-to-carry & stand-your-ground laws.

What if the pharmacist carries with the store's blessing, but doesn't shoot and someone is killed? Is the store or pharmacist liable because they didn't protect the patrons and saw no need for added security?

"The company took no action to improve security or worker safety."

That was what I said. Nowhere in that does it say CVS should authorize arming of its pharmacists and publicize this to the perps. IMHO you are assuming a lot out of what I said, if your post was referring to mine.

There are many ways to make a pharmacy a less inviting target without involving guns. They already do it with cash. Safes on time delay, bulletproof safety dividers, etc. If it works for cash, you can do it with narcotics too.

If the company is not going to let its employees defend themselves, and said employees have clearly become a frequent target, it seems to me the employer has some responsibility to increase safety and protection for those employees.

[btoeps74]

We just had a pharmacy (small locally owned) get robbed gun point. Not sure what their policy is concerning being armed or not. Personally I can see a valid point in not arming employee's as a gun fight is not a good thing with a store full of other shoppers. I know this isn't a popular answer but sometimes is best just to hand over the scripts or cash and get them out of the store and the danger away from the customers. I will say that a large chain store could probably afford to hire a security guard.

As for our local robbery mentioned, the guy made it across the bridge going into Michigan from Wisconsin but for whatever reason turned around back into Wisconsin where the police then took persuit in a high speed chase. The idiot ended up losing control and plowed into a garden. He will be doing some time I hope.

[nicky_pitts]

Originally Posted by WNC-shooter

Just wondering.... if the perps know that it's OK for the employees to carry, wouldn't that just make them the first target? I'm thinking I'd be pretty easy for the BG to outdraw a fella going about his business. I can draw and fire a down 1 in much less than 1 second.


What if the pharmacist carries with the store's blessing, but doesn't shoot and someone is killed? Is the store or pharmacist liable because they didn't protect the patrons and saw no need for added security?

This isn't an easy topic.

Just because a BG could be aware that it is ok for employees to carry does not change a thing in my opinion. Criminals know that as citizens we are "allowed" to carry, and this does not stop them from kicking in doors and commiting other crimes. No one knows you have a gun until you display it, hence concealed carry. The longer the BG is oblivious, the more of an upper hand you have.

And just because you carry a gun does not make you responsible for anyone else. And I don't see how the pharmacy could also be accountable for the actions or in this case the lack of actions of one individual. Wether it is another person, or someone's property, as a CCW holder you are not responsible for those things. You are responsible for yourself and your loved ones. More people need to begin to work towards being able to defend themselves, and not rely on LE or another "good sumaritan." A gun doesn't make you a LEO, and no one holds you to those standards. I carry to protect myself and my loved ones. If i chose to not display my weapon, or not draw and something bad happens to a fellow employee, I am in no way responsible for what happened. Say you do draw, or fire a shot and you hit an innocent bystander, now you are responsible for what has happened to someone else, and I don't want to be in that situation, ever.

[saltydog452]

Different focus but the same objective.

The individual wants to be able to go home at the end of shift.

The corporate entity wants to stay in business.

salty