PDA

View Full Version : Pharmacist fired from Walgreens for using a concealed handgun to stop a robbery, sues




Rael
09-13-2011, 04:23 AM
Jeremy Hoven is a pharmacist who used to work for Walgreen's in Benton Township, Michigan. After being a victim of a robbery at another Walgreen's Hoven was worried that the company had not done more to fix its security. Here is something that I wrote in May:

The police described it as an armed robbery and a hostage situation. Before dawn on Sunday, May, 8th, two robbers stormed into a Walgreens store wearing masks and gloves and carrying guns. Video cameras in the store on Napier Avenue in Benton Township, Michigan captured the whole event. Fortunately, though, Jeremy Hoven, a pharmacist and one of the employees in the store, had a permitted concealed handgun with him. Unfortunately, Walgreens fired Hoven for having a gun at work.

Police Lt. Delmar Lange thought that Hoven had done the right thing firing shots and forcing the robbers to flee. “[Hoven] could see the hostage situation developing. He could not retreat any farther. He was in the back room. If it was me, I would have done the same thing,” Lange told the Detroit Free-Press. Lange thought that the video cameras clearly showed that Hoven had no alternative. The robbers were “very aggressive and very dangerous in what they did and how they did it.”

At least one of the three other workers in the store was also convinced that Hoven did the right thing, sending Hoven a thank-you card with a photograph of his four children.

Other evidence also suggests that Hoven did “the right thing.” The National Crime Victimization Survey shows that defending oneself with a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a robber. For example, people who protect themselves with a gun are injured in robberies about 8 percent of the time, but those who behave passively are injured by the criminals 24 percent of the time, a three times higher rate.

Customers with permitted concealed handguns are allowed to take their guns with them into Walgreens, but when this crime occurred there weren’t any customers in the store. Walgreens’ policy means that the only people with guns inside of their stores might very well be criminals.

Police have yet to catch the two robbers, but they believe that one of them was wounded by Hoven. Hopefully, the robber will be arrested when he shows up at a hospital for medical treatment.

Hoven started working at Walgreens in 2006 and became the night shift pharmacist at the Napier Avenue store in 2007. The store was robbed by four men, one carrying a gun, in December 2007. Despite numerous requests for improved security by the store’s workers, Walgreens did not change anything. Out of concern for his safety, Hoven got his concealed handgun permit in November 2008.

Ultimately, the only way the employee gun ban will be fixed is if Federal OSHA policy is changed. Some states let employees keep guns locked in their cars in company parking lots. But simply letting Hoven keep his gun in his car obviously wouldn’t have let him get to it in time. Hoven fired his gun only after one of the robbers jumped over the counter and confronted Hoven. The robber was only a few feet from Hoven.

The police and Walgreen employees are glad that Hoven disobeyed the OSHA regulations. However, with President Obama running things, don’t expect the OSHA regulations to change anytime soon.

Those interested in letting Walgreens know that they were wrong to fire Hoven can email the company at consumerrelations.bb@walgreens.com.


Now Hoven has decided to sue Walgreen's for firing him.

"Store employees receive comprehensive training on how to react and respond to a potential robbery situation."
"Law enforcement strongly advises against confrontation of crime suspects . . . ."

1) What do you want Hoven to do while a robber is trying to fire his gun at Hoven? Wait for the police to arrive?
2) Not all law enforcement agrees with this advice as is obvious from Police Lt. Delmar Lange's comments.

From MSNBC:

A Michigan pharmacist who fought off armed attackers by firing a gun of his own to thwart a robbery attempt in May was hailed by many as a hero.
After the hair-raising confrontation that was captured on surveillance video, Jeremy Hovan’s employer rewarded him with a pink slip. Now, Hovan is fighting back, filing a federal lawsuit against Walgreens for wrongful termination.
“No life was lost, no life was harmed, and nothing was stolen,’’ Hovan’s lawyer, Dan Swanson, told NBC News. “So in that context, I think he was a hero. He was exercising his reasonable right of self-defense in the face of a gunman who attempted to pull a trigger three times and shoot him. Presumably, shoot him dead.’’
Hovan was working the overnight shift at a Walgreens in Benton Harbor, Mich., in May when two armed gunmen burst through the front door. One pointed a gun in the back of one of Hovan’s fellow employees, while the other leapt over the counter into the pharmacy area. Hovan immediately grabbed a gun of his own in his left hand, while holding the phone in his right hand.
Caught on the surveillance video, the armed robber behind the counter attempted to fire at Hovan three times, but the gun malfunctioned. Hovan fired three shots of his own, causing both gunmen to flee the store without anyone being hurt or anything being stolen. A fellow employee quickly scrambled to retrieve one of the guns left behind. The two gunmen are still at large
“I feared for my life, and in self-defense, I fired my weapon as I continued to move from him,’’ Hovan said at a press conference. “He hurdled over the counter in a single motion and pointed his weapon at me. The gunman repeatedly attempted to fire upon me.’’ . . .

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Krugerrand
09-13-2011, 04:50 AM
I'm fine with Walgreen's firing him for violating company policy. He should sue them for distress for failure to provide protection and failure to provide a safe working environment.

Personally, I won't shop there anymore.

Travlyr
09-13-2011, 05:40 AM
Interesting story. If that is Walgreen's policy, then why shop there?

Again it's the FEDS!

Ultimately, the only way the employee gun ban will be fixed is if Federal OSHA policy is changed.

fisharmor
09-13-2011, 06:27 AM
Interesting story. If that is Walgreen's policy, then why shop there?
If you didn't shop anywhere where this is the policy, you'd not be shopping at all.
It's the policy at every workplace in the country.
Hell, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out it's the policy at the NRA headquarters.


Again it's the FEDS!
Yes, but I think it's indirect.
The bottom line is that a business has to carry insurance for events like this.
Insurance companies manage risk. Adding more guns to the mix is seen as risk. After all, law enforcement always says to just roll over, just like on 9/11! It works!

The answer is to create an insurance company which accounts for the reduced risk that would come from armed and trained civilians.
And as soon as we get to the mountain of red tape involved in that, we see the real federal involvement there.

Rael
09-13-2011, 07:48 AM
I think the best solution until things change is to ignore your employers rules and carry concealed anyway. I'd rather lose my job than get killed in a robbery.

Icymudpuppy
09-13-2011, 07:54 AM
All my employees carry firearms with them to work.

Usually a .22 revolver.

Krugerrand
09-13-2011, 07:56 AM
If you didn't shop anywhere where this is the policy, you'd not be shopping at all.
It's the policy at every workplace in the country.
Hell, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out it's the policy at the NRA headquarters.


Yes, but I think it's indirect.
The bottom line is that a business has to carry insurance for events like this.
Insurance companies manage risk. Adding more guns to the mix is seen as risk. After all, law enforcement always says to just roll over, just like on 9/11! It works!

The answer is to create an insurance company which accounts for the reduced risk that would come from armed and trained civilians.
And as soon as we get to the mountain of red tape involved in that, we see the real federal involvement there.

Insurance may require the policy ... but it does not require you fire the guy. The correct response from that perspective would have been to issue a statement commending the guy for his actions, offering him a bonus and extra paid time off to recuperate from the traumatic experience, and include a byline reminding people that because of insurance regulation, store policy is that employees should not be armed.

Steve-in-NY
09-13-2011, 09:36 AM
I think the best solution until things change is to ignore your employers rules and carry concealed anyway. I'd rather lose my job than get killed in a robbery.This. Life over employment, a no-brainer.

AFPVet
09-13-2011, 10:21 AM
You could get bonded or have additional insurance to cover you lol. Getting bonded really isn't that expensive; however, for certain jobs which are more public, it might be a good idea. Liability is protected... it's kinda like being off duty, regular police working bank security—you are still insured by your department even if you are off duty; however, reserve officers have to be on duty in order to be covered.

aGameOfThrones
09-13-2011, 01:16 PM
At least one of the three other workers in the store was also convinced that Hoven did the right thing, sending Hoven a thank-you card with a photograph of his four children.

Only 1? Tisk, tisk. A pizza hut guy was fire for the same reason a while back.

Xenophage
09-13-2011, 01:22 PM
Walgreens is within their rights to fire an employee, whatever the reason. In this case, it's totally wrong, but it's hardly surprising. What major company wouldn't fire someone for brandishing a weapon? We live in a society of preconditioned victims, and in many cases we're forced by law not to defend ourselves.

In 1880 this guy'd get a bonus and a paid vacation. Today he gets fired.

Pericles
09-13-2011, 02:24 PM
Walgreens is within their rights to fire an employee, whatever the reason. In this case, it's totally wrong, but it's hardly surprising. What major company wouldn't fire someone for brandishing a weapon? We live in a society of preconditioned victims, and in many cases we're forced by law not to defend ourselves.

In 1880 this guy'd get a bonus and a paid vacation. Today he gets fired.

Sums it up. I encourage all of the employees of the company I own to be armed at all times.