[GhostTX]

I hope he gets his day in court.

Herald Palladium > Archives > Local News > Walgreens fires armed worker

 

[AwPhuch]

If Michigan is a right to work state...oops...too bad so sad

Unfortunately...if he signed a Code of Business Conduct that said no weapons..he gave up his right for employment the instant he violated the signing of said contract, and the COBC is a valid contract!

Sucks..but I can't carry my piece where I work..however now I can leave it in my car in the parkinglot...(way to go Texas!)

 

[HowardMan]

cant blame him for carrying but if it was in his contract not to then he should be ready to lose his job over an incident. the important thing is that while he lost his job he has his safety. i go through a similar dilemma, im a private investigator and my employer has a no guns policy but i go to some pretty sketchy neighborhoods and often stay in them for extended periods. i dont think its fair for employers to make their employees choose between their own protection and their jobs but i guess thats life.

 

[KNO3]

If Michigan is a right to work state...oops...too bad so sad

Unfortunately...if he signed a Code of Business Conduct that said no weapons..he gave up his right for employment the instant he violated the signing of said contract, and the COBC is a valid contract!

Sucks..but I can't carry my piece where I work..however now I can leave it in my car in the parkinglot...(way to go Texas!)

Agreed. Only thing court would do is cost him money.

 

[infectednite]

The article doesn't seem to indicate a code of conduct, and he seems to believe it didn't violate company policy. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.

 

[Pit Boss 71]

No where in the article does it say he signed any type of contract when he started work at Walgreen's so we can't speculate that he broke any code of conduct.
From the article:
He said he knows of no specific Walgreenspolicy barring employees from carrying lawfully concealed weapons at work.
And no, pro-union UAW Michigan is not a right to work state. Unless we are not being told something which could very well be the case, this guy seems to have a pretty good law suit against Walgreen's for wrongful termination.

Lastly, what a bunch of chicken s**ts for telling him he was fired in an e-mail.

 

[Ocean82]

What the hell does the police need to hold on to the gun for?

 

[xdmp22]

Maybe walgreens should look at the reports from Omaha Ne @ a walgreens location where a customer carrying a gun put down a gang banger and stopped a theft that could have turned ugly (IIRC, there were 2 or 3 robbers, atleast 2 with guns. 1 was shot, the others fled

 

[Electrikkoolaid]

It is cheaper for Walgreen's to let thieves make off with drugs and property than to pay a lawsuit when an employee shoots and kills a bystander.

Until we start culling the herd of lawyers, this problem will persist.

 

[ETrain33]

I am curious to know if he had actually hit the perp if walgreens would have still let him go. Considering he fired several rounds and missed they could be considering this a much larger liability, and a big problem if this would happen again with customers in the store. None of us that have never been in this situation really know how we are going to do in a situation like this. All we can do is practice it as much as possible, so we don't have a situation like this happen with missing our inteded target. If the perps gun didn't malfunction this would have unfolded very differently. If I was this guy, I would be doing some serious work so this doesn't happen again. I completely agree with what he did, and your life is way more important then your job. However firing several rounds I believe they said, not hitting the intended target definitely isn't good at all, and could have gotten him killed when if he didn't have a weapon there is a possibility the perps would have taken what they wanted then left. I definitely agree with his actions though, and find it pretty ****** he got fired, specially over email. I will not be a customer at walgreens in the future!

 

[kalford]

We all just witnessed a big push by individual states to become shall issue concealed carry states. I really hope that someone passes a law that protects us ccw holders at work. I mean we have to be there at least 40 hours a week. Just a pipe dream.

 

[apamburn]

It does suck to work somewhere for 8 hours a day and not be able to carry a weapon. I personally believe it is worth risking termination. Concealed is concealed. But that's a whole other box of chocolates. I dont carry at work right now not because it's against policy, but because it is against the law. As a licensed unarmed Security Officer, carrying would not only be against the policies of my company, but more specifically against the law being that I am not licensed to do so.

 

[LJenkmd]

This guy is a hero and is being treated like SH*T by Walgreens. There needs to be some community outrage and a boycott of the store. He says he knew of no policy that Walgreens has that would have prevented him from carrying, so even if there is a policy, they may be liable because they didn't inform him. Below is a link to Walgreens' Corporate Support email. Let's pound them with complaints....

Contact Us | Walgreens service &h2=Other service&h3=Corporate&h4=consumer

 

[TACC XD]

It is a shame , doing the right thing, is not always the best thing.

 

[XDTA]

What the hell does the police need to hold on to the gun for?

Any time a firearm has been discharged wether it be SD or criminal act, the police seize said weapon for investigative purposes. Once it is ruled that the man used the weapon lawfully they will return said firearm to its owner. However fully expect the firearm to have been man-handled and fired atleast once. Theres some ignorant people who work in law enforcement who just don't care about other people's property, seen it myself in action. Its a damn shame.

 

[df34adfe34]

What the hell does the police need to hold on to the gun for?

Evidence in a homicide investigation. He should get it back after he's been formally cleared.

 

[justiceisraped]

His employer does not allow workers to have firearms, he signed, his fault.

 

[Ocean82]

Evidence in a homicide investigation. He should get it back after he's been formally cleared.

Yeah, I get the "official" reason, but why do they NEED it? Evidence? Look here's the gun, write down the make/model/caliber/SN and you're done. It doesn't need to sit in a safe at a police precinct. Having the actual gun does not make any difference.

 

[CarlosT]

Yeah, I get the "official" reason, but why do they NEED it? Evidence? Look here's the gun, write down the make/model/caliber/SN and you're done. It doesn't need to sit in a safe at a police precinct. Having the actual gun does not make any difference.

Actually, they'd need the gun if they're doing ballistics testing, and if any other questions came up about the weapon, they'd be able to do whatever testing is required with the chain of custody having been preserved. And chain of custody is hugely important in investigations. If they gave the weapon back right away and then needed it back, how could they establish that it was in the same condition as it was during the incident? They wouldn't. And that leaves the evidence vulnerable to being thrown out.

I remember a forensics show that featured a case where a guy was out hunting with his wife and she was fatally shot. The question was whether the rifle had an accidental discharge, as he claimed, or if he had intentionally killed his wife. As is standard procedure, they took and kept the weapon and performed various tests. They eventually established that there were worn parts somewhere in the mechanism that would cause the gun to fire if it were dropped upside down. He normally carried his rifle slung barrel up, so when it slipped off his shoulder, it landed upside down and went off. This was further confirmed by wound analysis, which showed that the shot came angling up from very low off the ground.

Now if they'd given the weapon back right away, then gotten it back to test the accidental discharge hypothesis, any results they got would be subject to doubt. Did he modify the rifle after the fact to create the conditions for the accidental discharge? Is the weapon in the same condition in all respects that it was when it was involved in the incident? This guy might not have been cleared if the chain of custody had been broken and the exonerating evidence had been thrown out.

 

[Boris]

Actually, they'd need the gun if they're doing ballistics testing, and if any other questions came up about the weapon, they'd be able to do whatever testing is required with the chain of custody having been preserved. And chain of custody is hugely important in investigations. If they gave the weapon back right away and then needed it back, how could they establish that it was in the same condition as it was during the incident? They wouldn't. And that leaves the evidence vulnerable to being thrown out.

I remember a forensics show that featured a case where a guy was out hunting with his wife and she was fatally shot. The question was whether the rifle had an accidental discharge, as he claimed, or if he had intentionally killed his wife. As is standard procedure, they took and kept the weapon and performed various tests. They eventually established that there were worn parts somewhere in the mechanism that would cause the gun to fire if it were dropped upside down. He normally carried his rifle slung barrel up, so when it slipped off his shoulder, it landed upside down and went off. This was further confirmed by wound analysis, which showed that the shot came angling up from very low off the ground.

Now if they'd given the weapon back right away, then gotten it back to test the accidental discharge hypothesis, any results they got would be subject to doubt. Did he modify the rifle after the fact to create the conditions for the accidental discharge? Is the weapon in the same condition in all respects that it was when it was involved in the incident? This guy might not have been cleared if the chain of custody had been broken and the exonerating evidence had been thrown out.

It all depends on the situation, and not all of them are the same. I have read more than a few reports of SD and HD shoots where the shooter was let go home after on the scene questioning, no seizure, no arrest, no charges.

If the shoot was questionable or local law dictates then yes it will be held until you are cleared. If you are pre cleared under the law most cash strapped departments are going to close the case on the spot.

If there were any question at all and I was 100% within the law I could care less if they keep the pistol for whatever testing. I got more..........