It's a well known policy for all (at least most) employers that personnel should not resist robbers. Not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing--but...

He should have been fired for having lousy aim and not knowing his skills. If every idiot who doesn't know how to shoot straight starts blasting away they'll kill a lot more bystanders than they will bad guys.

Isn't it a little dangerous to be firing his gun at the robbers retreating through the store? The robbers didn't/couldn't fire? Were their guns even real?

Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.

Anti-escalation policies allowed 9/11 to happen. They had box cutters right?>> ^MarineGunrock:

Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.

I know. Fuckin' box cutters. I allllmost want to say we deserved it for having a nation full of such pussies that they wouldn't stand up to some fuckin' morons with box cutters. I mean, they were going to die either way. Should have at least fucking TRIED. >> ^waynef100:

Anti-escalation policies allowed 9/11 to happen. They had box cutters right?>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.


Try this logic. Walgreens guy defends Walgreens with a hand gun...at the next Walgreens robbery a few towns over after this has made national news the robbers come in hyper aggressive with AK-47s. They don't fuck around they just shoot if they think anyone can possibly be reaching for a gun.

I remember when I used to work at Gamestop I helped out at another one...and they told me someone was just fired for leaving too many envelopes of the days earnings in the safe. I thought "That's stupid whats the big F'n deal?" They explained to me that if a robbery had happened and the thieves got away with a large haul...it could potentially put more people in danger because it would get the message out that there's a large haul to be had from Gamestop...people could die over something like that.

Also your "some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands..." comment. Is it based on fact or a study?

>> ^Phreezdryd:

Isn't it a little dangerous to be firing his gun at the robbers retreating through the store? The robbers didn't/couldn't fire? Were their guns even real?


Yes surprisingly the nutcase with a fucking gun isn't TRAINED in how armed confrontations work. Let them go...don't risk anyone elses lives.

I'm not sure what bias there would be. I seriously doubt that's the kind of thing you could easily study, so I'm not going to bother looking for data. But we all know that people on drugs, meth in particular, are/can be very paranoid and twitchy. It doesn't take but a bell to ring at the door for them to be spooked enough to pull the trigger while it's aiming at the clerk. Besides, I think that if they had access to AK-47s they'd use them the first time. It's why I go to the range as much as I can to keep my aim as good as possible. If I get the chance to draw a bead on someone who is actively and willingly endangering someone's life, they probably won't live to regret it. 15 hollow point rounds to the chest would make sure of that.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.

Try this logic. Walgreens guy defends Walgreens with a hand gun...at the next Walgreens robbery a few towns over after this has made national news the robbers come in hyper aggressive with AK-47s. They don't fuck around they just shoot if they think anyone can possibly be reaching for a gun.
I remember when I used to work at Gamestop I helped out at another one...and they told me someone was just fired for leaving too many envelopes of the days earnings in the safe. I thought "That's stupid whats the big F'n deal?" They explained to me that if a robbery had happened and the thieves got away with a large haul...it could potentially put more people in danger because it would get the message out that there's a large haul to be had from Gamestop...people could die over something like that.
Also your "some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands..." comment. Is it based on fact or a study?

So during the current armed robbery you're supposed to consider the possible consequences upon the next armed robbery? Try this logic. The current armed robbery is your supposed next robbery.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.

Try this logic. Walgreens guy defends Walgreens with a hand gun...at the next Walgreens robbery a few towns over after this has made national news the robbers come in hyper aggressive with AK-47s. They don't fuck around they just shoot if they think anyone can possibly be reaching for a gun.
I remember when I used to work at Gamestop I helped out at another one...and they told me someone was just fired for leaving too many envelopes of the days earnings in the safe. I thought "That's stupid whats the big F'n deal?" They explained to me that if a robbery had happened and the thieves got away with a large haul...it could potentially put more people in danger because it would get the message out that there's a large haul to be had from Gamestop...people could die over something like that.
Also your "some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands..." comment. Is it based on fact or a study?

Good for Hoven for not being a pussy. Now if only someone will give him a haircut.

If the company policy is no resistance, would that not encourage more robbery? What is the point in having weapons for defence if you're not permitted to use them? Walgreens could have praised his courage but added; "We do not recommend all employees react in this manner. However, it is the individuals choice to defend themselves if they feel their life is threatened." As for some of the comments; it is easy to sit at your desk and site statistics or studies AFTER the fact. Are you seriously saying that in a similar situation you would think; "I should be ok because my chances of getting killed, according to a recent study, are pretty low, or would you do what he did? I hope you never have to find out.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I know. Fuckin' box cutters. I allllmost want to say we deserved it for having a nation full of such pussies that they wouldn't stand up to some fuckin' morons with box cutters. I mean, they were going to die either way. Should have at least fucking TRIED. >> ^waynef100:
Anti-escalation policies allowed 9/11 to happen. They had box cutters right?>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.




and what exactly gives you the right to judge people in that situation? you of course would have gone full John McClane on them and save the day would you? It's an incredibly unsensitive thing to say something like that.

I'm not saying I would have saved the day. I'm saying I would have fucking tried.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I'm not saying I would have saved the day. I'm saying I would have fucking tried.

But the passengers on those planes assumed they were dealing with a standard hijacking. There was no way for them to know what was going to happen to them. They obviously assumed (incorrectly) that the danger of trying to do something and getting stabbed and potentially killed outweighed the danger of doing nothing.

Oooo, I have a fantastic Walgreen's story. My friend was in Walgreen's getting some prescription medicine when an african-american woman was detained by Walgreen's staff for theft. She was yelling & making a scene & the employees handcuffed her to a pole.

My friend FLIPPED out on the Walgreen's staff surrounding the woman they were holding captive - I forget what he said since I wasn't there - I'm pretty sure he was telling them to let her go, they have no right. He probably went on a Zizek-esque political rant.

Anyway, a couple of days later was the World Series, in which we won. The streets became a riot, people were burning buses, people were running over crowds of people in their cars, it was crazy. My friend happened to be witnessing the mayhem unfold down Market Street. He was passing by that Walgreen's with the entire affair still burning him up on the inside - when he noticed one of the people that had taken part in this incident standing by the entrance to the Walgreens also watching the mayhem unfold. He walked up to the guy, "Hey, remember me, motherfucker?" And then proceeded to SHOVE HIS WHOLE HAND DOWN THE GUY'S THROAT. Haha! Bizarre. This is only one of the reasons employees at large corporations should just let 'em go & let security deal with these issues.

I don't understand why they have to fire him...just enforce the anti-escalation policy. It's not like the criminals are going to say "gee, they did fire that guy who shot back at us...maybe that Walgreens isn't so bad a company, we shouldn't try to rob from them again.

Just sends a shitty message, The defense attorney makes a great point. Submit and risk getting killed or get fired and lose your livelihood.

Of course, carrying and firing the weapon creates the same risks though too. I really want to support concealed carry, but for every one person who would use conceal carry responsibly, there are ten fucking idiots who would do something stupid. Too many fucking wannabe cowboys and heroes

Honestly I think you stand a much larger risk of getting killed if you resist. These crooks want to take money and leave without too much fuss, they don't want to start killing people and have police chasing them around the country for murder. You pull out a firearm and start firing all over the shop (lolpun) they panic just as much as you, only they might be a better shot. Honestly the do not escalate policy is meant to protect employees at the expense of the company, after all its their shit that gets stolen.

Whether or not to fire him comes to a question of training imo. If he was made properly aware of their policy and why it exists and he still disobeyed it then I think he deseves to lose his job. If not then I think its unfair to penalise him. Why fire him? Well because not only did he endanger his own life by acting rashly, he also endangered his fellow employees and any members of the public that were nearby.

As for hijacking...come on. Way to string up a straw man there. Terrorism is SO similar to some crims trying line their pockets. Be real.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

...15 hollow point rounds to the chest would make sure of that.
If you need more than one or two you're doin' it wrong.

Who said anything about need? >> ^CelebrateApathy:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
...15 hollow point rounds to the chest would make sure of that.
If you need more than one or two you're doin' it wrong.