Knee-jerk reaction. Hoven is a man who refused to abide by the policies of his employer, despite receiving comprehensive training on their robbery procedures and how to react and respond, and was fired because of it. What should Walgreens apologize for? For hiring a man who can't follow the rules and procedures that he has agreed to follow?
It's one thing to have a policy against chasing a robber out the door, or against detaining a shoplifter or something similar, but any policy against reasonable self-defense is immoral and to be ignored.
One place I worked had these old elevators and I got stuck in one. Someone brought a chair and I pried the doors open and stepped down and out. Later, my boss chastised me for not waiting to be freed some way that didn't involve crawling out. After all, he reasoned, had the car plummeted while I was half in and half out, I'd have been cut in half.
Perhaps, I rebutted, but when my safety is in question, I start making all the decisions that affect me.
Another time, when I was a guard, several of us who were off-duty stopped at the shopping center at night where one of our fellow guards was stationed. We were all standing around talking, and I noted that the guard on duty had bought a new gun.
"Sure did," he says, and unholsters it, safes it and hands it to me. I was a bit surprised he did that, but I looked it over to my satisfaction and returned it.
Later, after we had left, I was talking to the owner, who was also there at the time, and told him, "I don't know what he was thinking. If we had heard some shots fired on the property while I had the gun, I wouldn't have given it back to him." He said he wouldn't have if he were me, either. When your safety is at stake, you have the moral and ethical right to act in your own self-interest.
I had to shake my head back when the anthrax scare was going on in D.C. The capitol police sent a message to all congressmen and senators to "shelter in place," and they all complied. I wondered how binding that "order" was. I can't imagine considering that binding. Then again, I don't consider "mandatory evacuations" binding, either.
From that and the fact that he missed repeatedly from a few feet away, is a clear indication that he isn't well trained in high pressure, high adrenaline situations, and probably has no business carrying a gun while in the employ of someone who will be financially responsible for his actions. Frankly, I'm surprised that he didn't end up getting shot with his own gun. cy.
That someone inexperienced and untrained misses like that from so close in such a situation is closer to the rule than the exception. Cops do that all the time.
From what I've gleaned from your posts (unless I'm confusing you with someone else), you have some extensive firearms training and experience, right? So you know about how adrenaline and tunnel vision and all that affect someone in that type of situation. So that he missed like that is hardly unusual. To say that disqualifies him puts so lot of cops out of a job if that's the standard.
Incidentally, CVS has the same policy of no guns and no confronting robbers. So does Walmat. So does Rite-Aid. If you go to another pharmacy, you're doing nothing but supporting the same policy, just at a different store. Why wait until a policy gets enforced, why not just go ahead and boycott any pharmacy with those policies?
Better yet, boycott all business which have a no-guns policy.
But can't we differentiate between a policy against stopping a robbery and defending one's own life?
