Fired !! for what ? geez...maybe he had an unapproved weapon ? They shouldn't fire the guy I didn't see where he did anything wrong. Maybe the bozo who fired him should be put in his shoes at that time.
yea i seen this and yea I know this guy has a concealed to carry permit for his own gun, how ever Walgreens fired him for his actions on having a gun on the company's property.
what get me is why didnt this store have a over night armed guard.
they usually sit out in their cars.
go figure ...they obviously got their heads stuck where the sun doesn't shine. I'm sure the guy brought the weapon because there had been previous problems and the store wouldn't take the steps to better protect it's employe's. So he did what he felt he needed too.
Yea that's crap them firing him, but it was probably on the basis he has a weapon on the property even though he had a concealed weapons permit. I think another walgreens will pat him on the back for what he did and they will hire him and commend him for his actions. Good job on his part IMO.
yea i seen this and yea I know this guy has a concealed to carry permit for his own gun, how ever Walgreens fired him for his actions on having a gun on the company's property.
No, it wasn't about the gun specifically. Here is an article on it:
yea i seen this and yea I know this guy has a concealed to carry permit for his own gun, how ever Walgreens fired him for his actions on having a gun on the company's property.
No, it wasn't about the gun specifically. Here is an article on it:
If he wouldn't of taken a gun on to WG propriety he would still have a 9-5 today.
Now on this non escalation policy, was this just implemented into WG TOS or has it always been their policy?
Sounds to me WG is doing what they can to cover all legal aspects.
That is possible as then there would be no way for him to violate the "non-escalation policy."
Hoven clearly states that he was never at any time informed that such a policy existed prior to his termination. This is why he is suing his former employer.
That may be true as this will be settled in the courts.
it has to be said that anyone robbing an establishment knows the risks.there has been an incident here in the uk where cps has dismissed a case where a small shop owner killed a robber but found it was self defence.you only have to look at the recent riots here what happened when the law was overwhelmed.
i guess the answer is to just let them go,i cant see the point risking your life for multi million dollar companies when they have insurance for such instances.
i mean whats the point in attacking a thug who stealing fags of stealing a chocolate bar worth $1.
