Tis a sticky question
When do the actions of the company/entity in question begin to build a case of culpability or liability if an employee is harmed in an event such as a robbery?
You could do an entire law school semester on that topic and still have no clear answer.
So, does the policy create that liability when the reasonable company would be expected to know the risks of its business? E.g. not providing for the safety of pharmacy employees where there is a recognized risk of robbery? Is the answer the enclosed glass box of some banks and gas stations? Hardly the open atmosphere national pharmacies would like. Fort Drug just isn't as welcoming...
If employees can't have immediate means of self defense - then what?
The give-it-away policies seem to hang their argument on the notion of a rational perpetrator - is that a reasonable expectation RE liability?
Is there a "civil right" to expect safety from these situations in the workplace, especially from a national company?
I'd like to hear some thoughts on those since my opinion in this matter is biased.