Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Walgreens sued by pharmacist who stopped robbery with handgun
#1
By Michael Oneal
Thu Sep 8 2011 4:46 PM
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.

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."

The suit explains that Hoven had worked for Walgreen since early 2006 and was rated "above-average" in his most recent performance review. He began carrying a gun to work after the Benton Harbor store was robbed by an armed assailant once before in December 2007.

Following that incident, the suit said, Hoven asked Walgreen management for increased safety measures, including installing a "panic-button" and mandating that the store be shut down during power outages. But when Walgreen didn't comply, Hoven decided to seek a permit for his own concealed weapon and started carrying a high-powered revolver to work in his pants pocket.

What happened on May 8 is clear from the surveillance videos.

Two hooded men carrying pistols burst into the store, which was empty of customers, and immediately grabbed one of Hoven's co-workers and dragged him around the store. Hoven tried to call 911, the suit said, but then one of the men jumped over the pharmacy counter and pointed his pistol at Hoven, who drew his own gun in response. The video shows Hoven, phone in one hand, gun in the other, firing multiple shots. With that, the two gunmen turned and fled from the scene, dropping one of their pistols in a store aisle.

Walgreen said in its statement that its non-confrontation policy, which it said is endorsed by law enforcement officials, is "designed to maintain the maximum safety of our customers and employees."

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."
Reply
#2
Looks to me that Walgreens thinks it owns its employees. Employees protecting themselves from assult by others is something Walgreens has a right to deny their employees. Being fired is the consequence of exercising your constitutional right to your own self protection.
Reply
#3
Store policy is no replacement for a persons right to defend themselves.

Policy that violates a constitutional right is a void policy in my opinion.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
















Reply
#4
(09-12-2011, 01:06 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: "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."

And did this aid in apprehending the two thugs?

The Walgreen's mouthpiece failed to indicate if it did.

To me, there's nothing like watching an execution from surveillence Hi-Def.

The blood looks so much richer on the dead employees' white lab coats.

I wonder if they've gone 3D?

Reply
#5
Tiki, I agree....with all that investment on Walgreens part to "prevent crime"......truth is the pharamacist did more to prevent crime and deserves a raise and a commendation for his thinking before the crime and his actions during the crime.
Reply
#6
In its official response to the lawsuit, Walgreens lawyers denied most of Hoven's claims, including that there was an armed robbery in progress.

In response, Hoven's attorneys have released a video of the incident taken by the store's surveillance cameras that shows an armed man dragging an employee through the store and then hopping over the pharmacy counter.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/0...B220110908



Next Walgreen's reply might be....

"It was holloween and those guys were just Trick or Treaters"....

"Don't believe your eyes, believe what we tell you"...

"Weren't you listening when we expressed our policy that supercedes the US Constitution?"
Reply
#7
(09-12-2011, 01:15 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Store policy is no replacement for a persons right to defend themselves.

Policy that violates a constitutional right is a void policy in my opinion.

I agree with Ima on this one.
Reply
#8
in law, and in court, policy can never supersede state and/or Federal law. however, employers do have the right to set the rules for employees and if the rules do not violate public policy, they are legit. and the employee knew that. so the Constitution may say he can carry, but property/business owners have the absolute right to set their own standards. the Constitution does not say he must carry.

















































Reply
#9
I wonder if they docked his pay for the bottles of NyQuil and Fleet Enemas he hit . . . while firing at the would-be robbers?
Reply
#10
(09-12-2011, 03:25 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: in law, and in court, policy can never supersede state and/or Federal law. however, employers do have the right to set the rules for employees and if the rules do not violate public policy, they are legit. and the employee knew that. so the Constitution may say he can carry, but property/business owners have the absolute right to set their own standards. the Constitution does not say he must carry.

In his defense, he had asked for additional measures to insure his and others safety after an armed robbery in 2006. He claims those measures were not under taken. Also he claims he was on the phone calling 911 when the armed intruder jumped over the counter confronting him and threatening his life. IMO since the police were not there (and who could expect that police instantly be present) and Walgreens had not delegated the pharmacist's safety to a hired guard and he only defended his life when threatened; I congratulate his behaviour and it's possible others owe their lives to this forward thinking man.

I need not remind everyone of how dangerous working unprotected in a Pharmacy can be...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/nyregi...lings.html

Man Pleads Guilty in 4 Killings at Long Island Pharmacy
Reply
#11
i was giving the legal opinion that may well prevail in court.

in reality, he should have shot the fuckers.

















































Reply