Walgreens Sued

Not sure how much of case he'll have, but this guy might have a chance of changing the corporate group-think that pollutes so much of society's thinking:

• Lawyers for a Walgreen's pharmacist in Michigan who lost his job after using his own gun to thwart an armed robbery attempt last May released surveillance video Wednesday that documents the event in chilling detail.
  
  Jeremy Hoven, who was hailed as a hero by gun rights activists after the incident, sued the retail giant in federal court for wrongful termination last month. Deerfield-based Walgreen Co. has denied the charge and is contesting the suit in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, MI.
  
  Hoven gained national attention last May after he brandished his own Smith & Wesson 357 Magnum revolver to prevent an apparent armed robbery at an all-night Walgreen's store in Benton Harbor, MI. Shortly afterward, Walgreen fired him for violating company policy.

Walgreens has a right to set policy and fire you if you don't follow it. You have no "right" to work at Walgreens if their rules violate your beliefs.

Here's where the change might happen though:

• Hoven's court papers say he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and only used it to protect himself and other store staff when two masked gunmen burst into the store at 4:30 am on May 8. The suit claims Hoven "had a right to defend himself and others" when he fired his pistol at the robbery suspects and had a "right to carry a concealed weapon" during the incident.
  
  But Walgreen contends Hoven's actions violated store policy, which specifically bars employees from carrying weapons and instructs employees to avoid confrontation in the event of a robbery.
  
  "Store employees receive comprehensive training on our company's robbery procedures," a spokesperson said in an emailed statement. "Compliance is safer than confrontation. Through this practice, we have been able to maintain an exemplary record of safety."

"Compliance is safer than confrontation?" Since when? That sure worked well at Brown's Chicken. Or Lane Bryant. Or a few dozen post offices we could name. Or in law offices across the country. Or schools.

There's a study out, post-Columbine, that changed the way Departments across the nation responded to school/workplace shootings involving one of two shooters. Quick confrontation saves lives. It doesn't matter how you respond, simply responding saves lives, either by catching the shooter unaware, evacuating potential victims from areas they might be slaughtered, or provoking the gunman into a suicide. We're sure one or more of our readers has seen or read the same thing - post a link if you can locate it.

Walgreens might be liable in another way though:

• The company contests Hoven's claims that it neglected safety after the 2007 robbery.
  
  "We've made significant investments in security technology in recent years, including increasing the number of digital surveillance cameras at our stores," the company said. "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."

None of which prevented two assholes with guns from attempting to rob and possibly murder three of their workers in the store. And a security policy based on "hop[ing]...the apprehension of robbery suspects...prevent[s] future crimes"? Walgreens is fucking dreaming.