Hero Gets Fired for Using a Gun to Stop Robbery

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The police described it as an armed robbery and a hostage situation. Before dawn on Sunday, May, 8th, two robbers stormed into a Walgreens store wearing masks and gloves and carrying guns. Video cameras in the store on Napier Avenue in Benton Township, Michigan captured the whole event. Fortunately, though, Jeremy Hoven, a pharmacist and one of the employees in the store, had a permitted concealed handgun with him. Unfortunately, Walgreens fired Hoven for having a gun at work.

Police Lt. Delmar Lange thought that Hoven had done the right thing firing shots and forcing the robbers to flee. “[Hoven] could see the hostage situation developing. He could not retreat any farther. He was in the back room. If it was me, I would have done the same thing,” Lange told the Detroit Free-Press. Lange thought that the video cameras clearly showed that Hoven had no alternative. The robbers were “very aggressive and very dangerous in what they did and how they did it.”

At least one of the three other workers in the store was also convinced that Hoven did the right thing, sending Hoven a thank-you card with a photograph of his four children.

Other evidence also suggests that Hoven did “the right thing.” The National Crime Victimization Survey shows that defending oneself with a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a robber. For example, people who protect themselves with a gun are injured in robberies about 8 percent of the time, but those who behave passively are injured by the criminals 24 percent of the time, a three times higher rate.

Yet, despite all the evidence about the benefits from owning guns for protection and the extremely law-abiding, problem free behavior of permit holders, the Federal OSHA regulations forbid employers letting employees carry guns with them in the workplace. The notion is that banning guns will prevent gun-related workplace injuries, but gun bans don’t work out as government regulators would like. Customers with permitted concealed handguns are allowed to take their guns with them into Walgreens, but when this crime occurred there weren’t any customers in the store. Walgreens’ policy means that the only people with guns inside of their stores might very well be criminals.

Police have yet to catch the two robbers, but they believe that one of them was wounded by Hoven. Hopefully, the robber will be arrested when he shows up at a hospital for medical treatment.

Hoven started working at Walgreens in 2006 and became the night shift pharmacist at the Napier Avenue store in 2007. The store was robbed by four men, one carrying a gun, in December 2007. Despite numerous requests for improved security by the store’s workers, Walgreens did change anything. Out of concern for his safety, Hoven got his concealed handgun permit in November 2008.

Ultimately, the only way the employee gun ban will be fixed is if Federal OSHA policy is changed. Some states let employees keep guns locked in their cars in company parking lots. But simply letting Hoven keep his gun in his car obviously wouldn’t have let him get to it in time. Hoven fired his gun only after one of the robbers jumped over the counter and confronted Hoven. The robber was only a few feet from Hoven.

The police and Walgreen employees are glad that Hoven disobeyed the OSHA regulations. However, with President Obama running things, don’t expect the OSHA regulations to change anytime soon.

Those interested in letting Walgreens know that they were wrong to fire Hoven can email the company at consumerrelations.bb@walgreens.com.

http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2011/05/25/hero-gets-fired-for-using-a-gun-to-stop-robbery/#more-274096

[Harsh_77 716]

OSHA is one of the biggest ####### ever put in place.

Walgreens shame on you for firing employee who tries to protect your store and the other walgreen employes, which should had been protected and provided a secure work environment as per OSHA....

Which obviously Walgreens was not providing.....

I would not shop at Walgreens anymore.

[_Simpson_ 250]

OSHA is one of the biggest ####### ever put in place.

Walgreens shame on you for firing employee who tries to protect your store and the other walgreen employes, which should had been protected and provided a secure work environment as per OSHA....

Which obviously Walgreens was not providing.....

I would not shop at Walgreens anymore.

Sorry but you just can't have your employees bringing guns to work.

[^_^ 5,021]

Sorry but you just can't have your employees bringing guns to work.

You freakin' liberal.

[_Simpson_ 250]

You freakin' liberal.

[Danno 1,228]

<<<Other evidence also suggests that Hoven did “the right thing.” The National Crime Victimization Survey shows that defending oneself with a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a robber. For example, people who protect themselves with a gun are injured in robberies about 8 percent of the time, but those who behave passively are injured by the criminals 24 percent of the time, a three times higher rate.>>>>>

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sorry but you just can't have your employees bringing guns to work.

That should only apply to the post office.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Sorry but you just can't have your employees bringing guns to work.

why not?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

why not?

Old Guy said it in a subtle manner - employee goes postal. IMO it should be a don't ask don't tell situation.

[SMR 368]

Old Guy said it in a subtle manner - employee goes postal. IMO it should be a don't ask don't tell situation.

This has the same problem as almost every other anti-gun argument I have heard. If a guy wants to go postal, neither OSHA regulations nor the threat of getting fired are going to stop him. More broadly, handgun restrictions only keep people who want to follow them from carrying handguns. And the intersection of people who want to do bad things with guns and people who obey handgun regulations is pretty darn close to an empty set.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This has the same problem as almost every other anti-gun argument I have heard. If a guy wants to go postal, neither OSHA regulations nor the threat of getting fired are going to stop him. More broadly, handgun restrictions only keep people who want to follow them from carrying handguns. And the intersection of people who want to do bad things with guns and people who obey handgun regulations is pretty darn close to an empty set.

Why is it that on every other decision, like being able to tell a male employee they can't wear earrings, many side with the rights of ownership (business), but when it comes to bringing a gun to work, that's a protected right that supersedes the right of ownership?

[Danno 1,228]

why not?

PArt of the problem is the store.... unlike you and I in our personal life, have a much wider exposure to liabilities. We are responsible for our own actions... the store must account for every $10 an hour worker they have.

The store that allows it's employees to pack a gun assumes much more liability for things they have no control over.

If I owned a corner store, I would allow my clerks to carry if they wanted too, if I owned a chain of stores ... it gets way more complicated.

I might as a policy allow concealed carry peeps to carry but even that gets complicated with keeping up with who's license is expired and so forth.

I would prefer my clerks to carry without my knowledge or authorization.

[Danno 1,228]

Why is it that on every other decision, like being able to tell a male employee they can't wear earrings, many side with the rights of ownership (business), but when it comes to bringing a gun to work, that's a protected right that supersedes the right of ownership?

I don't think he debated the right of the business to decide these matters, only the logic of a "rule" keeping someone from going postal.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

why not?

Oh, so you're ok with a store owner choosing who can enter his store based on the color of their skin, but by golly, don't allow him to restrict guns on his property?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why is it that on every other decision, like being able to tell a male employee they can't wear earrings, many side with the rights of ownership (business), but when it comes to bringing a gun to work, that's a protected right that supersedes the right of ownership?

You missed the point of the article.