The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 2, 2011, 06:20 PM   #26
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Its the last time I ever step foot into Walgreens....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 08:48 PM   #27
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,384
Quote:
double naught spy, you say there is no increase in robberies of the stores that acknowledge they have a no firearms policy???? really???

Then why have 10 of the last 10 pharmacy robberies in the Spokane, WA area, as reported on the TV new...ALL BEEN WALGREENS??????? (not all the same stores, but all have been Walgreens)
You are going to have to show me your data and dates because I can't find anything to support your claim online.

You have 10 since
May 24, 2011 when Rite Aid was robbed? http://www.kndu.com/story/10749538/a...nes-south-hill
Nov 29, 2010 when Rite Aid was robbed? http://www.spokesman.com/video/2010/...e-aid-robbery/
Aug 31, 2010 when the Fifth and Browne Pharmacy was robbed? http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...may-oxycontin/
Aug 3, 2010 when the Rite Aid was robbed? http://www.krem.com/news/29th-rite-a...-99913574.html
July 9, 2010 when the Alberson's pharmacy was robbed?
http://www.krem.com/news/crime/Pharm...-98125464.html

I just listed a few of your pharmacy robberies in Spokane only, but it sounds to me like y'all have a fairly significant problem and it isn't just with Walgreens. On top of that, Walgreens policy isn't new. How do you account for the other pharmacies being robbed if Walgreens is such an easy mark?

Yes, the guy involved in the May 2 robbery actually robbed 2 Walgreens and he also carjacked a guy.

So, show me your data. Show me the 10 Walgreens robbed with some links to verify.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 09:14 PM   #28
GoOfY-FoOt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
Here is my take...

I think that the stores have done their homework. And, their conclusion is that it would cost them much more, if someone sued them for being injured or worse by an employee's actions, than it would cost to quiet a grieving spouse. Besides, it's common knowledge that stores like WM take out individual life insurance policies on their employees. Probably for reasons such as that.
It's all about the bottom line.
GoOfY-FoOt is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 09:33 PM   #29
Daggitt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2011
Posts: 321
Both our Major Food Stores here now welcome customers to CCW. Gotta love Grocery shopping. Bring on the Big Guns. No robberies at our Grocers.
Daggitt is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 09:34 PM   #30
mes227
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2010
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 535
''it's common knowledge that.....take out life insurance on their employees...''???

That sounds like an urban legand. Any evidence to support this? Having owned and managed a company with 500 employees I can tell you it's impossible to take out life insurance on employees without their permission. So there ought to be plenty of former employees willing to back up this claim.
mes227 is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 09:39 PM   #31
GoOfY-FoOt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
Quote:
I can tell you it's impossible to take out life insurance on employees without their permission
I didn't say it was without permission. I signed some forms when I was hired. One was for personal insurance and another separate form showed the company as the beneficiary. I'm sure most sign without reading, but it is a fact.
I don't have a copy of the form, but I'm sure others could corroborate my claim.
GoOfY-FoOt is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 09:42 PM   #32
mikejonestkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 2,752
Google is your friend :

http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/whic...-of-employees/

They may tell the employees about their insurance policy program, or just pass it by them in a stack of employment forms without telling them that they are signing an insurance policy with the employer named as the beneficiary.

walgreens is listed ..
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
mikejonestkd is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 09:47 PM   #33
mes227
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2010
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 535
I just wanted to take exception to the title of this post. He was on private property and if the business owner prohibited guns then he was trespassing, which is both a civil and criminal violation. Whether or not you agree with the owner's decision, you can't legitimately challenge his right to make it.
mes227 is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 09:56 PM   #34
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mes227
He was on private property and if the business owner prohibited guns then he was trespassing, which is both a civil and criminal violation.
Perhaps in Nevada but certainly not in Utah. Laws vary from state to state.
Don H is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 09:57 PM   #35
GoOfY-FoOt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
Quote:
He was on private property and if the business owner prohibited guns then he was trespassing
I believe that the prohibition was only towards employees. In Florida it is perfectly legal to enter a Walgreens while armed, when holding a valid CWP.
GoOfY-FoOt is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 10:15 PM   #36
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
BTW: Rite Aid is the same as Walgreen in their employee cc policy.

Also, I don't watch the news every night, and yes, it appears that there are other pharmicies being robbed too, openly all no firearms allowed ones..

There are lot of oxycodon thefts in the Spokane area..I live about 150 miles NW of there...but Spokane is where our "local" Direct TV news comes out of.
hermannr is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 11:27 PM   #37
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,384
Quote:
BTW: Rite Aid is the same as Walgreen in their employee cc policy.

Also, I don't watch the news every night, and yes, it appears that there are other pharmicies being robbed too, openly all no firearms allowed ones..
So you made a bogus claim with made up data to prove a point and got caught. Your claim was not substantiated and your credibility has suffered. Can you provide any data to show a difference between chains that all employees to carry versus those that don't in regard to pharmacy robberies? I can't even find where Walgreens robberies are necessarily going up because of their policy.

Rite Aid has the same policy? Their robberies aren't necessarily going up. What of all the other pharmacies?

Come on, places get robbed regardless of the policy. It happens at convenience stores all the time. It happens at banks with armed guards. Hell, even gun stores get robbed...at gun point.

Quote:
There are lot of oxycodon thefts in the Spokane area.
You mean at pharmacies? We aren't talking thefts, but robberies, many of which seem dedicated on procuring oxycontin, where the bad guys threaten or engage in violence to procure the drug.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 2, 2011, 11:51 PM   #38
grayrock8@yahoo.com
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Posts: 7
Here in Texas, the local Walgreens is NOT posted with a 30.06 sign, which means the public can come in armed if they are a legal CHL holder. But the employees can't? Hmmm.
__________________
Pithy sayings will materialize when I feel inspired
grayrock8@yahoo.com is offline  
Old June 3, 2011, 01:03 AM   #39
Noodle
Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2011
Location: Eastern, Iowa
Posts: 35
@grayrock - I would assume this is because the store or company could just wash their hands of any involvement if there was an incident by a non-employee. Now if an employee is involved then their could be a lawsuit claiming that the employee was acting on behalf of the company.

I don't agree with it but that's what it sounds like to me.
Noodle is offline  
Old June 3, 2011, 08:41 AM   #40
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,037
Quote:
Google is your friend :

http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/whic...-of-employees/

They may tell the employees about their insurance policy program, or just pass it by them in a stack of employment forms without telling them that they are signing an insurance policy with the employer named as the beneficiary.

walgreens is listed ..
Ha, ha, ha. Dead peasant policies! Corporations making a profit if you are killed during work hours.

If you are salaried and die at home due to work stress, do they still get a payout?

I wonder if they will start issuing uniforms to staff with little bullseyes over the parts of the body that provide a quick kill? Sort of “shoot here” shirts?.

Has anyone ever been turned down for employment if they did not sign the Dead Peasants Policy?.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old June 3, 2011, 01:35 PM   #41
ConlawBloganon
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2011
Posts: 47
Quote:
If you don't work for yourself (and can therefore make your own rules regarding firearms), then the best thing you can do is to hand the junk over. It isn't yours, it isn't your money. No point in engaging in violence over something that isn't yours. Drawing your own gun isn't a magic end to the robbery and can easily be what takes the robber's own threat and turn it into action on his part. Not a worthwhile gamble for something that isn't yours.
Yeah, except that, statistically, you're more likely to come out unscathed if you resist with force, per Kleck.

Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.
ConlawBloganon is offline  
Old June 3, 2011, 04:17 PM   #42
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,967
In Seattle:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/03...html?hpt=us_t1

the druggists are arming them selves according to this article.
markj is offline  
Old June 3, 2011, 04:52 PM   #43
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,613
A local private pharmacist near me shot dead a robber.

Also, there is a legal literature on liability and it clearly indicates that companies are told they face more financial risk if an employee does something bad with a firearm (shoots an innocent, goes nuts) than paying off an employee or their family if they get hurt in a robbery. Despite, the claim that you can sue them for not allowing you to defend yourself - the majority of legal sources doesn't support that.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 3, 2011, 05:39 PM   #44
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
Yeah, except that, statistically, you're more likely to come out unscathed if you resist with force, per Kleck.
My only question is if Kleck was talking about ALL robberies (including street muggings); we're discussing a narrow slice of robbery (robberies of businesses). The only reason to shoot someone in this kind of crime is either a calculated attempt to eliminate a witness (graduating from robbery to murder is not done lightly) or just because the perp is a whacked out evil person (not unknown).
Technosavant is offline  
Old June 3, 2011, 09:17 PM   #45
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
My suggestion...

Turn on tv, watch a crime channel for an hour or two.... After watching many fully cooperating store owners and employees get shot or stabbed (in this short period) for not resisting in any way then consider your decision to protect your life or become a victim...
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; June 4, 2011 at 05:47 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old June 3, 2011, 11:34 PM   #46
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,384
Quote:
Yeah, except that, statistically, you're more likely to come out unscathed if you resist with force, per Kleck.
I seriously doubt it. People and businesses are robbed every day with no resistence and come out unscathed. The vast majority do not resist with force and are completely unharmed. According to the FBI from several years ago, about 87% of those that comply are unharmed. That leaves 13% that comply that still get harmed and those aren't great odds, I understand. So that would mean that resisting with force would have to result with people being unscathed more than 87% of the time. Given that so many people aren't armed and resist via physical contact with their aggressor, the likelihood for them getting harmed will be increased.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 3, 2011, 11:47 PM   #47
grayrock8@yahoo.com
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Posts: 7
Glenn E. Meyer: was that the guy over on Babcock?
__________________
Pithy sayings will materialize when I feel inspired
grayrock8@yahoo.com is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 08:34 AM   #48
ConlawBloganon
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2011
Posts: 47
Quote:
I seriously doubt it. People and businesses are robbed every day with no resistence and come out unscathed. The vast majority do not resist with force and are completely unharmed. According to the FBI from several years ago, about 87% of those that comply are unharmed. That leaves 13% that comply that still get harmed and those aren't great odds, I understand. So that would mean that resisting with force would have to result with people being unscathed more than 87% of the time. Given that so many people aren't armed and resist via physical contact with their aggressor, the likelihood for them getting harmed will be increased.
You could be right. The studies Kleck referenced* said otherwise. Do you have a study to quote, or are you just going to serve up some alphabet soup and expect me to take it at your word?

*Kleck references the following:

Burglaries:
  • PhilipJ. Cook, The Technology of Personal Violence, 14 CRIME &JUST.: ANN. REV. RES. 1, 57 (1991).

Robberies:
  • MICHAEL J. HINDELANG, CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION IN EIGHT AMERICAN CITIES(1976);
  • Gary Kleck, Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, 35 Soc. PROBS. 1 (1988);
  • Gary Kleck & Miriam A. DeLone, Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery,9 J. QUANTITATIVE CRIMINOLOG5Y5 (1993);
  • Eduard A. Ziegenhagen & Dolores Rosnan, Victim Responses to Robbery and Crime Control Policy, 23 CRIMINOLOGY 675 (1985).

Last edited by ConlawBloganon; June 4, 2011 at 08:48 AM.
ConlawBloganon is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 10:43 AM   #49
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,613
Yep, that was the guy on Babcock.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 12:26 PM   #50
GoOfY-FoOt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
Quote:
GLENN E. MEYER wrote: Also, there is a legal literature on liability and it clearly indicates that companies are told they face more financial risk if an employee does something bad with a firearm (shoots an innocent, goes nuts) than paying off an employee or their family if they get hurt in a robbery.
That's what I said back in post 28, in a nutshell...Thanks, Glenn.
GoOfY-FoOt is offline  
Reply

Tags
2nd amendment , assault , laws , robbery , self defense

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14309 seconds with 7 queries