Pharmacist and Tech Shot Over Argument

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
VictorOfHungerGames said:
I never understood this concept. So the guy has a gun already drawn on your face, you still gonna try to reach for your gun? And this is protecting yourself? Haha

Btw, thats from a personal experience. I used to help my parents with their business and we had a few armed robbers while I was there one of whom pointed his gun at my face from 5 feet away. We had a shot gun and a couple of small handguns at the business. My dad even had one on him. There is no fcking way youre drawing your weapon. I mean unless youre John Wick, you having a gun on you means **** when another gun pointed at your face.
Click to expand...
Or again, as is the case with this thread if someone is shooting my coworkers I can draw
 
VictorOfHungerGames said:
Wtf would any pharmacist get basic training on how to use a gun? Lol crazy stuff goes down at country hospital all the time, i dont see doctors and nurses panicking about needing to carry a gun.
Click to expand...
gun training is for anyone using a gun, being a pharmacist is irrelevant

And yes, many doctors and nurses want to carry (or do)
 
CetiAlphaFive said:
Nope, I pointed out that I wasn't making embarrassing statements like you.
"Nobody's saying"
Go re-read my post.

I.e., if I were debating an anti-vaxxer, I'd have posted "Nobody's saying vaccines are 100% effective"
It's a communication technique that I try to use to snap ideologues out of their irrational, dug in positions.

I do think it's embarrassing that you posted that joke of a meta-analysis without carefully examining it.
Click to expand...

This cracks me up, because you are the one that's the ideologue. I'm not some anti-gun liberal. I don't really care about gun ownership. And I don't support gun ownership restrictions. Mostly because it's too late to do anything about it. The toothpaste is out of the tube. It's not going back in. The difference between me and the gun nuts is that I just don't think people really need guns because they statistically won't protect you. I think it's statistically foolish to own one.

You are falling for decades of NRA propaganda, my man. The only people that blather on about Kellerman's study are right winged dittoheads that desperate want its conclusions to not be true. The study I posted is a metaanalysis. They are going to look at every study out there. There are other metaanalyses that show similar conclusions. Like this one. And they didn't cite your boogeyman study from the early 90s, either. Of course, the NRA spent decades claiming the methodology was flawed...literally lobbied and successfully got the Dickey amendment passed ceasing federal spending on studies involving gun violence...and then have the cajones to complain that there aren't enough quality studies. I mean it's common flipping sense. How often are you actually going to get to live out that cowboy fantasy of dispatching the bad guy with your shiny firearm? What are the actual odds this ever happens to you? Especially as an upper middle class person in a nice neighborhood? Your teenage child is way more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than you will dispatch a criminal with it. And that's where these odds come from.

And as an aside...unless you live in a bad neighborhood, I honestly think you are a giant ***** if you need a gun to feel safe. I grew up in WV. I used to live in a trailer park. I had a meth head literally try to kick my door in and the old Ford Thunderbird I drove had bullet holes in it from a driveby. (They weren't aiming for me, the car just happened to be in the way). I compare that to my life now. I forget to lock my door half of the time and nothing bad happens around here. Why the hell do I need a gun? The 1 in a million chance that I get put in an actionable situation where I would shoot a guy with a weapon? lol. Y'all upper middle class gun owners are soft as Charmin.
 
I'm not really picking sides here because I'm don't really have a good standpoint in this but if you do have a firearm on you, you better be dam good at using it because the robber is definitely going to shoot you at this point
 
rxkrafted said:
I'm not really picking sides here because I'm don't really have a good standpoint in this but if you do have a firearm on you, you better be dam good at using it because the robber is definitely going to shoot you at this point
Click to expand...
Gun rights advocates agree with you that incompetent users are not a great idea
 
Of course you don't just pull it out when a gun is being pointed at you. You have to think while the situation is going down and wait until an opportunity arises to take action.

Example: waiting until the robber is distracted, leading the robber to the safe, let them be distracted by the drugs, wait until their back is turned then open fire.


Listen, I get that the victim in a robbery scenario may or may not get shot even if they have a gun. I want the ability to at least be able to retaliate if the opportunity arises.

Self defense weapon of choice would be a semiauto shotgun or a 9mm pistol.
 
Last edited:
owlegrad said:
Incompetent users...like the police officers that shot unarmed civilians? Or that shot other officers?
Click to expand...
I've been pretty consistent about not claiming that all officers are competent. If I gave you a different impression in this thread, I apologize for the confusion.
 
Sparda29 said:
Of course you don't just pull it out when a gun is being pointed at you. You have to think while the situation is going down and wait until an opportunity arises to take action.

Example: waiting until the robber is distracted, leading the robber to the safe, let them be distracted by the drugs, wait until their back is turned then open fire.


Listen, I get that the victim in a robbery scenario may or may not get shot even if they have a gun. I want the ability to at least be able to retaliate if the opportunity arises.

Self defense weapon of choice would be a semiauto shotgun or a 9mm pistol.
Click to expand...

For once I agree with Sparda and am curious how people will try to respond to him.
 
sb247 said:
I've been pretty consistent about not claiming that all officers are competent. If I gave you a different impression in this thread, I apologize for the confusion.
Click to expand...

Well that's fair and I am sorry I misrepresented your position. To put it another way, if police officers cannot be trusted to be competent gun users, who can be?
 
Last edited:
owlegrad said:
I am not sure you need to study magical properties. I mean RTC with a control group is going to be difficult, sure, but


Well that's fair and I am sorry I misrepresented your position. To put it another way, if police officers cannot be trusted to be competent gun users, who can be?
Click to expand...
There may be a snuck premise in there so I'll address that first and then larger point of the post as I see it.

"trust" to be competent. Any adult citizen who hasn't been hurting people and isn't mentally dangerous has a right to defend themselves with a firearm, even if they aren't trained to the point where I'd trust them to be competent. Because it is a right, they shouldn't have to prove to me that they are good enough with the gun for me to be proud of their skills. I wouldn't base ownership rights on this

The larger question, if all the cops aren't even good with a gun, how can "normal folks" be good with a gun. Very simple. Actually practice with your gun. Take a class or two. Join a shooting sport. Many, many cops never fire their gun regularly. It is not hard to be a better shot than a lot of cops.
 
sb247 said:
gun training is for anyone using a gun, being a pharmacist is irrelevant

And yes, many doctors and nurses want to carry (or do)
Click to expand...

Who? Have you talked to or seen these doctors and nurses?! Where is the proof that MANY docs and rns while working at a hospital want to carry a gun with them?

Just asked three of my doctor friends. They all gave me “wtf are you talking about?!” answer. Maybe nurses will feel different about it since theyre more hardcore lol ill ask when i go to work tomorrow.
 
sb247 said:
There may be a snuck premise in there so I'll address that first and then larger point of the post as I see it.

"trust" to be competent. Any adult citizen who hasn't been hurting people and isn't mentally dangerous has a right to defend themselves with a firearm, even if they aren't trained to the point where I'd trust them to be competent. Because it is a right, they shouldn't have to prove to me that they are good enough with the gun for me to be proud of their skills. I wouldn't base ownership rights on this

The larger question, if all the cops aren't even good with a gun, how can "normal folks" be good with a gun. Very simple. Actually practice with your gun. Take a class or two. Join a shooting sport. Many, many cops never fire their gun regularly. It is not hard to be a better shot than a lot of cops.
Click to expand...

Sorry that first bit was a partial reply to a comment I never finished, which is why it trailed off nonsensically. Didn't realize it was part of my post. Whoops! I removed it just because it wasn't meant to be in there to begin with.
 
VictorOfHungerGames said:
Who? Have you talked to or seen these doctors and nurses?! Where is the proof that MANY docs and rns while working at a hospital want to carry a gun with them?

Just asked three of my doctor friends. They all gave me “wtf are you talking about?!” answer. Maybe nurses will feel different about it since theyre more hardcore lol ill ask when i go to work tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I personally know of 4 docs that carry (not so) secretly against the rules, and that's just the ones loose enough with the information that I got wind of it. I know of a dozen more than have said personally they would if allowed. Much like the general population, a lot of docs/nurses would carry if they could do so without being fired.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
This cracks me up, because you are the one that's the ideologue. I'm not some anti-gun liberal. I don't really care about gun ownership. And I don't support gun ownership restrictions. Mostly because it's too late to do anything about it. The toothpaste is out of the tube. It's not going back in. The difference between me and the gun nuts is that I just don't think people really need guns because they statistically won't protect you. I think it's statistically foolish to own one.

You are falling for decades of NRA propaganda, my man. The only people that blather on about Kellerman's study are right winged dittoheads that desperate want its conclusions to not be true. The study I posted is a metaanalysis. They are going to look at every study out there. There are other metaanalyses that show similar conclusions. Like this one. And they didn't cite your boogeyman study from the early 90s, either. Of course, the NRA spent decades claiming the methodology was flawed...literally lobbied and successfully got the Dickey amendment passed ceasing federal spending on studies involving gun violence...and then have the cajones to complain that there aren't enough quality studies. I mean it's common flipping sense. How often are you actually going to get to live out that cowboy fantasy of dispatching the bad guy with your shiny firearm? What are the actual odds this ever happens to you? Especially as an upper middle class person in a nice neighborhood? Your teenage child is way more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than you will dispatch a criminal with it. And that's where these odds come from.

And as an aside...unless you live in a bad neighborhood, I honestly think you are a giant ***** if you need a gun to feel safe. I grew up in WV. I used to live in a trailer park. I had a meth head literally try to kick my door in and the old Ford Thunderbird I drove had bullet holes in it from a driveby. (They weren't aiming for me, the car just happened to be in the way). I compare that to my life now. I forget to lock my door half of the time and nothing bad happens around here. Why the hell do I need a gun? The 1 in a million chance that I get put in an actionable situation where I would shoot a guy with a weapon? lol. Y'all upper middle class gun owners are soft as Charmin.
Click to expand...

So you support the conclusion of the Kellerman study that says the presence of a firearm increases the risk of being shot by 1,700%???

Do you think that this is a robust and repeatable result?

Suicides are, at most, 1/3rds of gun related deaths in modern times. Suicide rates were MUCH lower pre 1998. That is not where those odds come from.

Nice "real men don't need guns" tough guy posturing.
 
Last edited:
owlegrad said:
Well that's fair and I am sorry I misrepresented your position. To put it another way, if police officers cannot be trusted to be competent gun users, who can be?
Click to expand...
I think it may be helpful to take police off of the pedestal we put them on after 9/11.

They're no different than any other blue collar worker.
Well, I mean, they do kill 1,000 people per year. That's different.
 
A lot of cops are terrible shots who rarely train. I've seen it when I go to the range. The hobby shooter who spends every weekend shooting 1000+ rounds is a much better marksman than a lot of the cops who visit the range.

Hell, even Keanu Reeves is a better marksman than most cops.
 
WVU's 100% accurate, real world perception of how shootings occur:



Sparda29 said:
A lot of cops are terrible shots who rarely train. I've seen it when I go to the range. The hobby shooter who spends every weekend shooting 1000+ rounds is a much better marksman than a lot of the cops who visit the range.

Hell, even Keanu Reeves is a better marksman than most cops.
Click to expand...
OOF, that is especially true in NYC. The average NYPD patrolman looks like they were taken straight out of a Walmart stocker training program.
 
Last edited:
Walmart makes us do active shooter training every 3 months. "ADD" AVOID! DENY! DEFEND! I feel like since I face the customer counter more than the worker bee techs, that run around like chickens with their head cut off, I'd be able to make a bee line to the bathroom and lock myself in. Would it be frowned upon locking yourself in the bathroom alone and leaving the techs with the robber?
 
trailerpark said:
Walmart makes us do active shooter training every 3 months. "ADD" AVOID! DENY! DEFEND! I feel like since I face the customer counter more than the worker bee techs, that run around like chickens with their head cut off, I'd be able to make a bee line to the bathroom and lock myself in. Would it be frowned upon locking yourself in the bathroom alone and leaving the techs with the robber?
Click to expand...
The only pharmacy chain that sells guns and you don’t go “store use” one?
 
CetiAlphaFive said:
So you support the conclusion of the Kellerman study that says the presence of a firearm increases the risk of being shot by 1,700%???

Do you think that this is a robust and repeatable result?
Click to expand...

You took the class. If you do a metaanalysis, you include all the data and the law of averages will do its thing. So even if the study was all sorts of outlier, the other studies would bring it back down to Earth.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
You took the class. If you do a metaanalysis, you include all the data and the law of averages will do its thing. So even if the study was all sorts of outlier, the other studies would bring it back down to Earth.
Click to expand...
That’s true when you have a study with inexplicably unusual results. Not when the methodology is improper or not comparable to the other studies, which seem to be the argument of some. I don’t know if that’s the case, having read none of them.
 
SCRph2014 said:
Likelihood that WAG will retailate (when they recover) and say she shouldn't have been "arguing" with a patient when we all know it was her saying you can't have your *insert controlled substance* early, or is it too big a headline?Or will WAG have all it's pharmacists do training on conflict resolution? #ThatsNotTheProblemHere

Also, did anyone see the number of comments this article got yesterday when APhA shared it?
Click to expand...

It was over benzonatate not being covered by insurance believe it or not
 
So, you've shifted from "You desperately want it to be true!"
To
"It's ok because the meta analysis of <100 insufficiently powered studies fixes it"

Does the 2nd opinion piece/directive even contain data?

zelman said:
That’s true when you have a study with inexplicably unusual results. Not when the methodology is improper or not comparable to the other studies, which seem to be the argument of some. I don’t know if that’s the case, having read none of them.
Click to expand...
They collected data from 3 zip codes, from households with a high risk for violence.

I need to remember to come back and look closely at the other 96 studies in the meta analysis.
Im willing to bet, dollars you donuts, that they are all based on the 1998 study.
 
Another thing to think about: Once you pull out your weapon and unable to take down your robber with a shot (if even hit), you may create a shootout and now you put anyone nearby at risk of getting hit with stray bullets which may or may not be fatal. Not saying I don't agree with the right to bear arms for self-defense but just thinking about bad scenarios.
 
CetiAlphaFive said:
I need to remember to come back and look closely at the other 96 studies in the meta analysis.
Im willing to bet, dollars you donuts, that they are all based on the 1998 study.
Click to expand...
The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household MembersA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians
Heeeeere we go:

Let's review one of the six studies included in this meta-analysis that actually cover homicide.

The most relevant is Branas, et al as it describes, at face, a situation loosely related to the discussion at hand: Does having a gun make you more likely to be victimized?
The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications
Off the bat, it does cite Kellerman, but does not use its data.
Instead, they used data from 677 shootings in Philly, where 88% of the victims are black males.

Thinking.gif
 
Last edited:
I don't trust technicians enough to carry in a pharmacy. Sure, its concealed, but its gonna get out one way or another that you're packing heat. What's that stat about how many pharmacy techs get licensed only to divert drugs?

Or, consider the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Tech blabs about how many drugs they have to his gang-banger friend. Perp robs pharmacy at gunpoint. Pharmacist holds the door on the way out and goes home to family.

Scenario 2: Tech blabs about how many drugs they have to his gang-banger friend. Knowing that the pharmacist is packing heat changes the rules. Now step 1 is shoot pharmacist, step 2 is steal drugs.
 
lane one said:
I don't trust technicians enough to carry in a pharmacy. Sure, its concealed, but its gonna get out one way or another that you're packing heat. What's that stat about how many pharmacy techs get licensed only to divert drugs?

Or, consider the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Tech blabs about how many drugs they have to his gang-banger friend. Perp robs pharmacy at gunpoint. Pharmacist holds the door on the way out and goes home to family.

Scenario 2: Tech blabs about how many drugs they have to his gang-banger friend. Knowing that the pharmacist is packing heat changes the rules. Now step 1 is shoot pharmacist, step 2 is steal drugs.
Click to expand...
Scenario 1 is a false choice fallacy as (and again, I keep pointing this out) unarmed pharmacy staff can clearly get shot

scenario 2 is a false choice fallacy where one of the ignored options is now "considers that it might not be worth dying to score some drugs from a pharmacy"
 
TranslationalRPh said:
Scary stuff and quite shameful that a pharmacist and her tech were shot trying to do their jobs (Walgreens; Garner, NC).
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like they are doing their job. "the shooting stemmed from an argument the suspect had with the pharmacist." WAGs policy is to corporation completely during a robbery event. It sounds like the PharmD was pushing back with the gunman which resulted in predictable results.

It's difficult to imagine a scenario where I am arguing with a robber.

"Some things just arn't explainable, I just don't understand how someone could do something like this"

Ummm it's called a opiate dependent individual was undergoing severe withdrawal and needed opiates immediately...
 
Last edited:
Modest_anteater said:
Doesn't sound like they are doing their job. "the shooting stemmed from an argument the suspect had with the pharmacist." WAGs policy is to corporation completely during a robbery event. It sounds like the PharmD was pushing back with the gunman which resulted in predictable results.

It's difficult to imagine a scenario where I am arguing with a robber.

"Some things just arn't explainable, I just don't understand how someone could do something like this"

Ummm it's called a opiate dependent individual was undergoing severe withdrawal and needed opiates immediately...
Click to expand...
Reports are that there was an argument, not a robbery.
 
Modest_anteater said:
Doesn't sound like they are doing their job. "the shooting stemmed from an argument the suspect had with the pharmacist." WAGs policy is to corporation completely during a robbery event. It sounds like the PharmD was pushing back with the gunman which resulted in predictable results.

It's difficult to imagine a scenario where I am arguing with a robber.
Click to expand...

Has the time course of events been released? Has it been confirmed that the argument erupted over a robbery? Telling a patient no is sometimes part of the job. The article specifically mentioned that they were not shot because of the robbery, so I am trying to understand your basis for believing that they were uncooperative in a robbery as opposed to 1) doing their job by not filling without valid Rx, 2) shooter gets pissed and shoots them, 3) then robs the pharmacy. After all, what is theft compared to attempted double homocide?
 
TranslationalRPh said:
Has the time course of events been released? Has it been confirmed that the argument erupted over a robbery? Telling a patient no is sometimes part of the job. The article specifically mentioned that they were not shot because of the robbery, so I am trying to understand your basis for believing that they were uncooperative in a robbery as opposed to 1) doing their job by not filling without valid Rx, 2) shooter gets pissed and shoots them, 3) then robs the pharmacy. After all, what is theft compared to attempted double homocide?
Click to expand...

Yeah they wouldn't fill a script the shooter wanted. The pharmacist should have realized that the customer meant biz even before the gun was drawn. After he reached for the gun the pharmacist should have changed his tune. Poor emotional intelligence that almost cost them their lives. Hurt people hurt people. Maybe try to respect opiate dependent individuals instead of being a jerk to them?
 
Modest_anteater said:
Yeah they wouldn't fill a script the shooter wanted. The pharmacist should have realized that the customer meant biz even before the gun was drawn. After he reached for the gun the pharmacist should have changed his tune. Poor emotional intelligence that almost cost them their lives. Hurt people hurt people. Maybe try to respect opiate dependent individuals instead of being a jerk to them?
Click to expand...
1) It's inappropriate to give meds to anyone who yells about it
2) no one should have an expectation of predicting who will become violent
3) Have you seen any proof the staff argued after the gun was drawn?
4) compliance after a gun is drawn does not at all guarantee safety (regardless of #3)
5) There is no proof they had poor emotional intelligence
6) a crappy human almost cost them their lives
7) I haven't seen proof they were jerks to the criminal
 
sb247 said:
1) It's inappropriate to give meds to anyone who yells about it
2) no one should have an expectation of predicting who will become violent
3) Have you seen any proof the staff argued after the gun was drawn?
4) compliance after a gun is drawn does not at all guarantee safety (regardless of #3)
5) There is no proof they had poor emotional intelligence
6) a crappy human almost cost them their lives
7) I haven't seen proof they were jerks to the criminal
Click to expand...
It's all speculation till more info comes out. I'm sure the CCTV will be released in a few months on what actually happened.
 
sb247 said:
You should consider feeling less comfortable blaming someone who got shot at work by a criminal for the entire ordeal without proof.
Click to expand...
There are three sides to every story. The suspects story, the employees story and the truth. I think we all can agree we have to wait for more facts to come out to really determine what happened.
 
Modest_anteater said:
The pharmacist should have realized that the customer meant biz even before the gun was drawn.
Click to expand...

If each pharmacy met the demands of every individual that “meant business” there’d be no licensed pharmacists / technicians. I’ve had people try to reach over the counter to hit me but that doesn’t mean I’ll fill an expired prescription.

No one can predict who’d be so upset as to draw a weapon in an argument until the weapon is actually drawn. In this story I also see no evidence of the argument stemming over a weapon. Only a weapon being the conclusion of a before-hand argument.
 
Luol Deng Fan said:
This goes to show how vulnerable pharmacists are. You are no safer than apu behind the counter of a 7-11. Maybe you can carry a weapon of your own but if you work for a chain you will get fired by wags, cvs or walmart. If you own your own pharmacy you might get prosecuted if you fight back like this guy.

Commutation denied, life sentence upheld for pharmacist charged with teen’s murder
Click to expand...

This is different (intrigued nonetheless):

“Ersland shot unarmed 16-year-old Antwun Parker in the head after Parker and another tried to rob his pharmacy, Reliable Discount Pharmacy. Video shows Ersland left the store to chase after the second suspect, then came back and shot Parker five more times with another gun.”

That last bit sounds like anger and retribution was on the pharmacist looking for a cold blooded kill vs what might have been deemed self-defense to some degree.
 
BC_89 said:
This is different (intrigued nonetheless):

“Ersland shot unarmed 16-year-old Antwun Parker in the head after Parker and another tried to rob his pharmacy, Reliable Discount Pharmacy. Video shows Ersland left the store to chase after the second suspect, then came back and shot Parker five more times with another gun.”

That last bit sounds like anger and retribution was on the pharmacist looking for a cold blooded kill vs what might have been deemed self-defense to some degree.
Click to expand...
exactly, the first shooting exchange (when there was a guy with a gun waving it at fellow staff) was appropriately legal for the pharmacist
Giving chase was questionably legal at best
Going back to the store to get a second gun (likely to have one fully loaded) is appropriately legal and potentially very wise in case the gunman returned
It is 100% not ok to just continue firing rounds into a guy on the ground 3 minutes after he stops moving
 
Luol Deng Fan said:
This goes to show how vulnerable pharmacists are. You are no safer than apu behind the counter of a 7-11. Maybe you can carry a weapon of your own but if you work for a chain you will get fired by wags, cvs or walmart. If you own your own pharmacy you might get prosecuted if you fight back like this guy.

Commutation denied, life sentence upheld for pharmacist charged with teen’s murder
Click to expand...

You realize that this guy shot the teen child and then after he was disabled he shot the teen 5 more times completely unnecessarily just to impress his two female coworkers ?

>two children rob your store
>you rightfully defend yourself
>16 yo teen is laying on the group unconscious
>walk over to his body and fire five more shots into the unconscious teens head at point blank as he lays prone on the ground already completely disabled and posing zero threat
>your own security cameras catch this and secure your own life imprisonment

Gun nuts will defend this man justifying it as appropriate force. "defending himself" by firing 5 shots into an unconscious child's head at point blank. Just wow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Question Question
Michigan Pharmacist License by Endorsement for Canadian Pharmacist
Replies
0
Views
735
pharmacist_query
P
owlegrad
United CEO shot
Replies
15
Views
2K
rph3664
R
mrjbb
Applying to Pharmacy Schools and Becoming a Licensed Pharmacist with a Criminal Record
Replies
5
Views
1K
mrjbb
mrjbb
Caverject
Local Georgia Pharmacist wants to buy Greenland and rename it….
Replies
0
Views
2K
Caverject
Caverject
B
Informatics Pharmacist
Replies
1
Views
2K
gwarm01
G
Top