Life Off-Label

This article reminded me of a video I just watched in class about pharmacy robberies.

In that video, we were instructed to just give the robber what he or she demanded. I have no problem with that. I understand that it’s just a bunch of pills that can be replaced. However, most robbers aren’t going to stroll in and go, “Excuse me, could you kindly put some of those narcotics into this bag?” Sometimes, when a robber involves a weapon in their threat, it’s because they plan on using it. In addition to some drugs with street value, one of those things a robber might want is “no witnesses”, and I’m not as keen on the idea of obliging to that one.

In the case of this article, two men came into a Walgreens with the intent to rob the pharmacy. One of the men leaped over the counter and fired shots at the pharmacist. The pharmacist wasn’t injured, and at that point he takes out his concealed gun and fires back, scaring the men out of the store. The next day, Walgreens fires him for violating the company’s weapons policy.

I don’t blame Walgreens for taking the stance they have. They can’t condone pharmacists carrying concealed weapons because the legal ramifications if an innocent bystander were accidentally shot would be a PR nightmare. It should be noted, however, that the pharmacist mentions buying the gun after the store was robbed a few years ago. When that happened, did Walgreens take additional steps to provide a secure environment for its employees? No. And with that in mind, you can’t blame the pharmacist for taking matters into his own hands either.