Pages

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Walgreen's And Individual Self-Defense: A Legally Correct Decision With Immoral Consequences...

I sent the following email to a number of Michigan state legislators in the aftermath of a federal court ruling upholding the firing by Walgreen's of Jeremy Hoven, a Benton Harbor, MI, pharmacist fired for violating Walgreen's "non-escalation" policy by holding off armed gunmen with his own legally owned and carried firearm:



Gentlemen,

I have written to you regarding this proposed piece of legislation before, and I am going to continue doing so - especially in light of the federal court decision upholding Walgreen's right to require its employees to submit themselves to manhandling, abuse, and even lethal force by criminals in order to uphold a "non-escalation" policy that prohibits employees from actively defending themselves.

I want you to take a hard look at the security video footage of what happened the night two armed men stormed the Benton Harbor Walgreens where Pharmacist Hoven was employed, and then tell me that ANY company has the right to require its employees to submit to such criminal acts, to leave their God-given right to self defense at the door if they wish to retain their job.  You will notice that, at approximately the 54 second mark, one of the gunmen jumps over the pharmacy counter and, before Hoven has deployed his own legally owned and carried firearm, fires at least one shot at Hoven, at which point Hoven deploys his own firearm and returns fire, forcing the two criminals to flee for their own lives:





I could include similar videos and photos from DOZENS of such instances that occur each and every year in this country. Numerous people are killed and injured in such attacks because their employer, in the name of "private property rights," forces them to call police and wait twenty or more minutes for them to respond instead of allowing their employees to defend themselves.  The entire incident recorded in this video is over long before most police departments can respond; there is no indicator that the employees of this pharmacy even had time to notify law enforcement of what was taking place until after the criminals left the building.

Any way you look at this, such requirements are morally and ethically wrong.

We MUST restore the individual's right to actively defend him- or herself in such situations.  While it may once have been true that the best advice for such situations was to comply with the demands of criminals in the knowledge that most would leave one unharmed once they got what they wanted, this is no longer the case; too many criminals now kill for the sheer pleasure of it.

I am once again including a copy of the Hoven Self Defense Act.  To continue to shield employers' "right" to prohibit employees from acting in their own defense is immoral and unethical.

And it needs to stop.


Now.

No comments:

Post a Comment