As somebody entering school for pharmacy, I have to agree with this statement. You're stuck in a building full of pain killers, narcotics, and amphetamines. It's a pretty nice target for thieves.I think this is a line of work where, regardless of company policy, I'd still carry.
As somebody entering school for pharmacy, I have to agree with this statement. You're stuck in a building full of pain killers, narcotics, and amphetamines. It's a pretty nice target for thieves.
Too bad more pharmacist didn't protect themselves and clients.
I know, it's the companies fault.
...hahahaFreakin drug dealers...always out shootin people. Geez, get a job!
'MERICA!
You dont put guns in people's face and not expect to get shot.
Welcome to the show
Protect themselves, or protect the drugs?
Just to pay Devil's Advocate for a minute . . .
Protect themselves, or protect the drugs?
Just to pay Devil's Advocate for a minute, we've had hundreds of pharmacy robberies in Indy since I've been a detective. Seriously, hundreds. Not one pharmacist has been killed or seriously injured, and only a tiny fraction have been touched in any way. People who steal drugs are generally doing it for an organized criminal enterprise, and many report having some rudimentary "training" on what to do and how to act. Arming pharmacists might help protect the drugs, but would likely put the pharmacists themselves in more danger. Most of these folks aren't gun people, aren't trained in taking the appropriate action under stress, etc. I'd rather see armed guards than armed pharmacists, but really you could address this particular problem with some layout and policy changes.
The companies could protect the pharmacists and clients by simply making it more difficult to rob. Glass partitions like the old bank tellers, counters you can't jump, time delay safes for the popularly targeted drugs (which Wal-greens is implementing), would make a huge difference. Many won't though because they say it compromises the customer service experience.
Protect themselves, or protect the drugs?
Just to pay Devil's Advocate for a minute, we've had hundreds of pharmacy robberies in Indy since I've been a detective. Seriously, hundreds. Not one pharmacist has been killed or seriously injured, and only a tiny fraction have been touched in any way. People who steal drugs are generally doing it for an organized criminal enterprise, and many report having some rudimentary "training" on what to do and how to act. Arming pharmacists might help protect the drugs, but would likely put the pharmacists themselves in more danger. Most of these folks aren't gun people, aren't trained in taking the appropriate action under stress, etc. I'd rather see armed guards than armed pharmacists, but really you could address this particular problem with some layout and policy changes.
The companies could protect the pharmacists and clients by simply making it more difficult to rob. Glass partitions like the old bank tellers, counters you can't jump, time delay safes for the popularly targeted drugs (which Wal-greens is implementing), would make a huge difference. Many won't though because they say it compromises the customer service experience.
Fair enough. Let me play Devil's advocate. Is it the odds and not the stakes, then?
Do the good guys always win?
And Nov. 9, a man allegedly trying to rob a CVS at 8935 E. 21st St. — about 3:30 a.m., when the pharmacy counters typically are closed — was shot by Indianapolis police after confronting them with a weapon.
No, not always, but of course, irrelevant as to whether the pharmacist (or anyone else) should make the decision to protect themselves when someone threatens them with deadly force. just like the police do.
I have no problem with anyone shooting a robber. What I don't want to see is more good guys killed over someone else's property. Don't go into the debate with the assumption "armed = winning" and try to play the "odds vs stakes" with me.