Court upholds Walgreens’ firing of pharmacist using handgun

DrugTopics ^ | 06/12/2014 | Mark Lowery

[aimhigh]

A federal appeals court has ruled in Walgreens’ favor regarding a pharmacist who was dismissed after shooting at armed robbers with a legally concealed handgun.

Citing its non-escalation policy, Walgreens in 2011 fired Jeremy Hoven from its Benton Harbor, Mich., store eight days after shooting at robbers during his overnight shift. . . . .

The court disagreed, citing Hoven’s status as an at-will employee who could be fired at any time, for any reason.

[aimhigh]

In her ruling, Appeals Judge Karen Nelson Moore said Michigan’s Self-Defense Act doesn't grant citizens an unlimited right to engage in self-defense. Rather, she said, it only provides a potential defense to criminal prosecution by the state.

[lavaroise]

aint gonna sho there no more. Backstabbing walgreen.

[circlecity]

Actually, the court is right and Wal-Greens is the real bad guy in this story.

[Objective Scrutator]

When you view the Democrats as the representatives of literal armed robbers and America destroyers, this ruling makes sense. This moonbat judge and the moonbat idiot who ran the Walgreens are certainly Democrats. If the Walgreens corporate offices have their acts together, they will fire the moonbat middle manager.

[max americana]

I actually have never bought from Walgreen evens though they’re around. Pretty much especially after they were for fag marriage.

[docbnj]

So Walgreens has a ‘non-escalation policy,’ and self-defense is considered escalation? This is what happens when committees or lawyers make policy. It has little connection with reality: in this situation, who is to say what is escalation? If the police arrive, would you say that they are escalating the conflict? If a woman resists rape, is she escalating violence?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Walgreens’ policy may be stupid, but the court is right: you have a right to self-defense, but not a right to work for Walgreens. Walgreens can fire its at-will employees for any reason or no reason.

[Pollster1]

Actually, the court is right and Wal-Greens is the real bad guy in this story.

Close. The court is right, but both sides are the real bad guys in this story. An at-will employee can be fired for any reason or for no reason at all, so Walgreens is legally allowed to fire him, which is what the court had to determine. A store that prohibits the legal, responsible, and necessary use of firearms is morally wrong, and I will never again shop there.

[Mark]

Hash Tag to Twitter: “#Bring our pharmacist back!” There it’s fixed.

[Amendment10]

"The court disagreed, citing Hoven’s status as an at-will employee who could be fired at any time, for any reason."

Note that the Supreme Court had clarified in United States v. Cruikshank that although 2nd Amendment limits the powers of federal government, also state and local governments via 14A, these amendments do not prohibit the actions of private entities, Walgreens in this example.

But also note that there's nothing stopping citizens from working with state and local governments to make 10A-protected laws which protect the use of guns in such instances.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Okay, so the pharmacist lost his job. He’s still alive, and maybe the manager is still alive, because of what he did.

Personally, I think he should move to a different pharmacy, and learn how to shoot a LOT better.