Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Are you guys scared of Pharmacy Robberies?
Started by Twinsmom
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Mark Twain of course. Do pharmacists not read?
It must be difficult being so scared of the world you need to carry around a gun to feel safe.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Sorry I do not live in your world of puffy pink clouds, rainbows and unicorns where everyone holds hands and sings kumbya.
There are bad people in this world who do bad things to people. You can stick your head in the sand and hope nothing bad happens or you can be realistic and be prepared in case in does.
Nah, the gun carrier is the one living in the unicorn world.
If someone really wants you dead, you will die.
If a person ambushed you in a parking lot with a gun out of nowhere, you will die.
If a person tried to rob your pharmacy with a gun and you tried to draw your own, you will die.
People act like guns actually protect them. They don't protect ****. You want to talk about putting your head in the sand?
Not that I'm against gun ownership or anything..."gun people" just crack me up with that ****.
If someone pulled a weapon on you, you'd probably **** your pants, you ****ing liar.
Oversimplify much? There's no way to persuade everyone one way or the other, so it's not worth wasting time answering this kind of retort. Some feel safer knowing they're allowed to carry a gun, others don't. As long as you leave the option there, we can all exist in peace and harmony. Responsible gun owners aren't the ones holding up pharmacies.
I suppose I should have included that! I did learn it in high school too and knew it was attributed to Mark Twain. We had the Mark Twain house in CT and got to learn all about him when we went on a field trip there. 🙂
I'll admit it, I've never had a gun pulled on me, but I have had someone pull a knife on me back when I was doing undergrad in Brooklyn. Luckily for me, I had a knife and pepper spray on me. When the guy asked for my wallet, I went for the pepper spray, sprayed him, incapacitated him, and ran away.
In a situation where someone pulls a gun on me, I'd give them my money, and then shoot them in the back as they flee, then recover my property. (I've heard a rumor that you are not allowed to shoot a fleeing criminal.)
Hey what ever happened with that monstrous taser thing you had ordered?
It's not a rumor. You aren't allowed to shoot someone in the back to recover your property. Do so and you'll enjoy your time as a guest of the state. I can't believe you'd kill or hurt someone over money anyway. And don't say "well the criminals would!" because we're supposed to be better than common criminals.
Laser not taser. It has too many safety features to work as an effective self defense weapon, there's a whole code you have to press to unlock the laser. (Press button twice then hold button for 3 seconds X 3 times.)
I'm a believer in vigilante justice. The character played by Charles Bronson in Death Wish is how every citizen should be.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Oh, I am sure the criminals won't mind waiting while you try to unlock it.
It works pretty good for pointing out stars in the sky at night.
Interesting. I learn something new everyday. However if a criminal pull a gun out at you and ask for your wallet. You give it to them and they ran...and then you shot the person as they ran off to get your money back...I would not think you did anything wrong. I mean hey, the criminal shouldn't have pull a gun out at you in the first place and secondly, hey if you want to steal you can't be mad if there are consequences. The criminal or anyone for that matter should always know there are CONSEQUENCES for your actions. That should be common sense don't you think? I wouldn't think you did anything wrong if you shot the criminal for doing what they did in the first place. THEY HAD NO BUSINESS ROBBING PEOPLE! WTF.
According to law, if you shoot someone in the back in the situation you just described, you will be charged with assault or worse. That is NOT self defense. The laws clearly state that once the impending danger is over, you are no longer defending yourself. Guy running the other way =/= self defense. Now, if he was facing you and pulled a gun or shot at you or tried to jump you and you shot him, that's a different story. It would be wrong to shoot someone in the back like that whether he stole your wallet or not. Even if you DID believe in the eye for an eye BS, getting your wallet stolen is not comparable to shooting and possibly KILLING someone when you're no longer in danger. It would imply you thought about it, too...or that you wanted revenge, which is actually worse, IMO.
Not trying start a political discussion or anything but the problem with this country is that criminals don't face harsh enough consequences for their actions. As a society we slap them on the wrist. We value the lives of murderers more than we do unborn children. There shouldn't even be a trial for the guy in Arizona after doing what he did. He should be taken out back behind the courthouse and shot instead of sitting on death row for 25 years while our tax dollars pay for his food and health care. I think someone convicted for armed robbery in any setting should be sentenced to life in prison. Since our justice system won't do anything, I'm just going to make sure I protect myself as well as my family by owning weapons and being responsible with them. I am a big advocate for the right to own a gun if you are a law-abiding citizen. Sadly the guy from Arizona legally bought his. I'm not sure what each state does but mental health history should be included on background checks when buying firearms. I am all for more harsh background checks because I have nothing to hide. But if you carry a gun or not, it is stupid not to comply with the demands of a thief. When I was robbed, I gave the guy what he wanted and called the police. But occasionally some nut might be waiting for you outside and follow you to your car when your shift ends. I would definitely want a weapon on my side in that situation because people are capable of anything.
Last edited:
It's not a child until it's born, before that moment it is not a human and has no rights as such.
And why should the shooter be denied his constitutional rights? He is innocent until proven guilty by his peers, he has the right to due process and to not be subjected to cruel and ununesal punishment. Taking him out back and shooting him would violate all of these. Why are people always such ardent supporters of the second amendment but not the other nine?
The American culture is culture driven by fear. The majority of our policies are based on irrational fear. The war on drugs, the war on terror, the right to guns, suburban sprawl, immigration policies. They are all based on fear that someone is out to hurt you and your precious family. It's so silly and irrational yet it drives us.
And why should the shooter be denied his constitutional rights? He is innocent until proven guilty by his peers, he has the right to due process and to not be subjected to cruel and ununesal punishment. Taking him out back and shooting him would violate all of these. Why are people always such ardent supporters of the second amendment but not the other nine?
The American culture is culture driven by fear. The majority of our policies are based on irrational fear. The war on drugs, the war on terror, the right to guns, suburban sprawl, immigration policies. They are all based on fear that someone is out to hurt you and your precious family. It's so silly and irrational yet it drives us.
Last edited:
I agree with your first statement in bold. However, the laws are too lentient for criminals in this country. It's no wonder there are so much crime b/c there are hardly any punishment involved. The murder should be given a trial, but when he or she is proven guilty they should be shot right away after that.
When I heard about people being put on death sentence for years I think that's crazy. It should be guilty, then shot the next day. Never a need to wait more than 24 hrs.
And back to the wallet situation. If someone pull out a gun at me and STOLE my wallet, I hope they die and rot in hell. I would be so fu*king piss it won't be funny. So hell yeah I will shot them if they did that too me. SO people just expect me to just stand there BE HAPPY and watch my stuff get stolen?? WTF. That's mess up.
npage148 I respect your opinion. But, I feel that when a person takes away the rights of others by ending their lives for no good reason and enough people witness it common sense suggests that the shooter should lose his rights. I feel that this individual can no longer contribute to society and should no longer be treated as a human being and his genetic code should be removed from this earth. That may sound pretty bad, but that's the way I feel. We don't need people like that walking around this world.
And if someone stole my wallet, I'm gonna try to get it back. And the ******* that stole it is gonna be in the hospital.
And if someone stole my wallet, I'm gonna try to get it back. And the ******* that stole it is gonna be in the hospital.
I am not sure that is exactly correct. Many states ban late term abortions.
The death penalty has been used to kill numerous people that have been found to be innocent after the fact. I feel very uncomfortable with capital punishment given its spotty track record and there is the whole debate on whether the lethal injection process is cruel punishment
Gamecock, I hear they are hiring for the triple role of judge,jury, and executioner. You should apply, you obviously have an issue with due process. Last I checked he is still innocent
Gamecock, I hear they are hiring for the triple role of judge,jury, and executioner. You should apply, you obviously have an issue with due process. Last I checked he is still innocent
Granted, but it seems that DNA evidence has greatly improved the accuracy of convictions and making sure the right guy is the one getting punished.
And yeah, in some cases I do have a problem with due process. After looking at that freak's mugshot after killing a 9 year old girl and killing and wounding others, I'd love to get my hands on him.
Wow...there is a lot of big talk in this thread.
Killing someone b/c they stole your wallet? Really? I have no idea what it feels like to take someone's life, but I know for damn sure that "He stole my money!" is not a justification I could live with for the rest of my life. I'm not a liar, a cheat, a thief or a murderer and I refuse to act like one, even if I've been wronged.
Executing someone right after they are convicted? In our city, we have a massive lawsuit on our hands b/c a sloppy/corrupt detective framed numerous people for crimes they could not have committed. People rotted in jail until the newspaper uncovered the conspiracy. It happens. And by the way, for those of you who've never set foot in a courtroom or been part of a real criminal trial, DNA evidence is neither as useful or as infallable as TV dramas would have you believe. The same can be said for fingerprints. CSI is not real life and the science of convicting a criminal remains woefully imprecise.
I'm opposed to the death penalty. It's applied way too sloppily and inconsistently in this country but my major opposition to it is moral. Criminals kill. The state (and we b/c the state is an extension of the will of the people) should be better than the criminals. Besides, the death penalty is not economical. Incarceration for life is cheaper than executing someone.
Killing someone b/c they stole your wallet? Really? I have no idea what it feels like to take someone's life, but I know for damn sure that "He stole my money!" is not a justification I could live with for the rest of my life. I'm not a liar, a cheat, a thief or a murderer and I refuse to act like one, even if I've been wronged.
Executing someone right after they are convicted? In our city, we have a massive lawsuit on our hands b/c a sloppy/corrupt detective framed numerous people for crimes they could not have committed. People rotted in jail until the newspaper uncovered the conspiracy. It happens. And by the way, for those of you who've never set foot in a courtroom or been part of a real criminal trial, DNA evidence is neither as useful or as infallable as TV dramas would have you believe. The same can be said for fingerprints. CSI is not real life and the science of convicting a criminal remains woefully imprecise.
I'm opposed to the death penalty. It's applied way too sloppily and inconsistently in this country but my major opposition to it is moral. Criminals kill. The state (and we b/c the state is an extension of the will of the people) should be better than the criminals. Besides, the death penalty is not economical. Incarceration for life is cheaper than executing someone.
Even if incarceration for life were not cheaper, the death penalty is still the easy way out.
I say what we do is shoot them once in the leg, stab in the stomach, and let them work free labor in the fields for the rest of their life. Oh and feed them from human approved manure 😀
Really? Incarceration means the government would have to feed, shelther and provide for the criminal EVERYDAY until they die. That is CHEAPER than just killing them? how? A bullet can't cost that much money? or a legal injection, is it that expensive?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
That's a good way to think of it. You are right actually. If someone really stole my wallet and point a gun at me I would be BEYOND PISSED OFF and I would hope the WORST on them...but I most likely would not kill them b/c 1) hurting people, especially seeing blood makes me really sick in the stomach 2) I would never carry a gun or a knife around and 3) I would be too shock to react that quickly. And lastly, I am just not athletic enough to fight back!
But what I was saying is if someone told me that they shot someone b/c that person point a gun to their head and stole their wallet etc. I would not think they were a bad person, b/c I could understand the anger they must feel from idiots like that.
The reality is that we do not just shoot people in the head after the trial or take them in the courthouse bathroom and give them a lethal injection after the jury verdict. It takes years to execute someone b/c of various procedural rules and due process. And it SHOULD. I've laid out several ways the justice system can go wrong and innocent people can be convicted. Even with our current protections, we've still executed innocent people in this country. Expediency in the name of saving money is not the answer. One innocent person executed is too many.
That's a good way to think of it. You are right actually. If someone really stole my wallet and point a gun at me I would be BEYOND PISSED OFF and I would hope the WORST on them...but I most likely would not kill them b/c 1) hurting people, especially seeing blood makes me really sick in the stomach 2) I would never carry a gun or a knife around and 3) I would be too shock to react that quickly. And lastly, I am just not athletic enough to fight back!
But what I was saying is if someone told me that they shot someone b/c that person point a gun to their head and stole their wallet etc. I would not think they were a bad person, b/c I could understand the anger they must feel from idiots like that.
The difference between us and criminals is that we behave morally and we don't KILL people just b/c we are angry at them. I would kill someone to save my own life or to save the life of a loved one, but I wouldn't kill over money and I can't say I would be understanding or sympathetic to someone who did. It's MONEY. It's not worth killing for.
If the government reimbursed me for whatever the criminal took, then I would not put up a fight at all.
Rxlea is right...If prosecutors ever find a bullet hole in someone's back, you are SCREWED. That is considered an offensive action.
To claim self defense, you need a close-range entrance wound to the torso. Also, it sounds cruel, but they say if you ever have to shoot someone, make sure you kill (not just wound) them so they can't tell their side of the story in court.
Maybe when they take your wallet you could shout something to get the person to turn around and then shoot him??? Sadly though, the lawyer fees will still be much more than the cash in you wallet.
The rule of thumb for a justified shooting is $5,000 in lawyer fees for each bullet fired. That figure could climb as high as $15,000 per bullet if it is a borderline case or stray rounds hit other targets. Do not forget you can also be civilly sued for damages, which could push things into the 5 and 6 figures.
The bottom line is you only use deadly force when deadly force is being used against you. Pulling out a gun and ending someones life is not a trivial matter.
maybe that's why most places in the south are so safe... because you know that most people walking around in theh publics got a gun... lol
Although I am pro-choice I think it's kind of wrong to do late term abortion. If a woman carries the fetus for that long they might as well opt for adoption unless there are health risks of course. That's just me though. I think here in Georgia there is a strict time limit on how late you can have that procedure done... if you wait too long then you can't. Of course there will always be those people who are like "Oh I didn't know", but seriously... if you didn't know after like 3 months you probably should've been more careful and responsible with your reproductive health.
Then perhaps the punishment for robbery should be more severe so that people think twice. This is where we need to be more like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Convicted of robbery = chop off hands.
So a kid who steals a pack of baseball cards at the age of 13 should have his hand chopped off?
Or is it better to wait until he's an adult, and maim people at a minimum age of 18?
Saudi Arabia and Iran are two countries that I never want to emulate in any way. We have the moral highground of not being complete barbarians.
Having a criminal justice system where someone has years to appeal, etc, is a far cry from a system where the stones used for stoning someone to death are described in detail in the law.
I said robbery, not petty theft.
Point is, the criminal justice system should be focused on retribution/justice. Convicts who are in prison should be used as slave labor, instead of them just chilling out, watching TV, getting 3 meals a day, getting free housing, etc. That way, it's not a money sink.
You've admitted to stealing from several pharmacies you've worked at. So, nut up or shut up, I wanna see you cut off your hands.
Less jail more caning. Save money and reduce prison populations.
We could also fix our illegal immigration problem if we followed Singapore's example, "Singaporean law allows caning to be ordered for over 30 offences... and for visiting foreigners who overstay their visa by more than 90 days, a measure designed to deter illegal immigrant workers."
We could also fix our illegal immigration problem if we followed Singapore's example, "Singaporean law allows caning to be ordered for over 30 offences... and for visiting foreigners who overstay their visa by more than 90 days, a measure designed to deter illegal immigrant workers."
He's also admitted to driving fast (really fast) like a totally ****head ******* on the highway. In the event that he some day hurts or kills someone while driving like this, he may have a completely different view of what the criminal justice system should be like.
You're talking about when my boss gave me tramadol when I left my tramadol at home?
did you pay for that tablet? And I would suggest that you are subject to harsher penalties than just cutting your hands off since you stole AND you took a legend drug which was no prescribed to you. I'm sure that is good for at least a caning if we are using Middle Eastern laws.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I am curious, if your boss offered to give you something, would you accuse him of stealing? You might decline the offer but I doubt you would go so far as to say report him to your BOP for attempted theft.
I mean it can be argued that it's not the boss' med to give away (true statement, although pharmacists give away meds all the time in the form of 2-3 day supplies or to replace supposedly missing tablets), but if my boss told me I could have something I would not consider it stealing, though I would probably decline the offer. I just think comparing a boss giving you something to outright theft is hyperbolic.
I bet if you call CVS (or whoever) legal department and ask them what they think of it, they would say both are guilty of theft and would be terminated. It was not the pharmacist's to give away and it was not his to accept. I can't walk into a my friend's place of work and have him give me all the cash in his till.
No, but I offered to replace it with a pill from my bottle the next time I worked but he declined.
It's illegal to return meds to a pharmacy so you want to break the law to circumvent breaking a different law.
I didn't ask what the legal department would say. I asked what you would say. Would you tell your boss he is guilty of theft? Would you report him?
As for it not being the pharmacist's to give away (I agree), why does the same not apply to say gift cards? You have an upset customer, you shut them up with a gift card. You will be promoted, not fired for theft. It is not your money to give away. I believe it is because you are empowered by your employer to do so. I think a similar argument can be made here. I mean if you can give a tablet to a customer while waiting for say a refill authorization, why can't you give a tablet to an employee so they can get back to work? In this scenario I am assuming the employee is also a customer who originally filled the prescription at your pharmacy.
