CVS declares first victims ahead of time

[.cheese.]

Pardon the title, but that's essentially what they're doing.

Down here in South Florida there has recently been a string of armed robberies at all night pharmacies and it may involve other types of businesses as well. I took note of the pharmacies because I usually pick up my meds around 2 AM because 1) I'm usually up... and 2) There's no wait

Anyways, recently with the incidents, even though I always carry, I just stopped going to the pharmacy at night - until last night when I had no choice because I was really sick and needed an Advair ASAP.

... enough backstory... I walk in, and for the first time ever, I see a security guard sitting at the front counter looking incredibly bored.

Surprised, I just had to ask, "So... out of curiosity, did they hire you because of the recent incidents?"... and of course his answer was "Yes."

So I just said, "Well that's good to know that management is at least being proactive."

... and then he says what horrified me, "Yeah, but I can't have a gun on me."

... WHAT?! "You mean you don't have a G class license?" I ask.

"That.... and I'm not 21."

WHAT?!

I ask, "Well, I assume you have SOMETHING? Surely management doesn't expect you to throw chapsticks and bottles of shampoo at a group of armed men?!"

and then the worst... "Nope. Nothing. No pepper spray, no taser, no knife."

***? That's outrageous. It's one thing to have unarmed security guards as a regular security precaution when you're NOT expecting trouble. That's bad enough (because obviously, what happens when you DO have trouble?)

It's even worse to hire an unarmed KID to guard a store specifically in response to an increased likelihood that there WILL be trouble.

That kid isn't a guard..... if anything he's going to be the first victim!

It is just so wrong to slap a badge on a kid making him a target when you're expecting trouble and leave him there as bait. I would almost argue that it should be illegal!

I didn't say anything to management because I didn't want to get this poor kid fired...

I don't want to post what store this is publicly because I worry I'd be making them even more of a target by declaring that they're defenseless on the net. However, if you're interested in the phone number of the store or the store number should you want to complain, PM me.

I'm personally writing a letter to HQ:

CVS Corporation
Corporate Headquarters
One CVS Drive
Woonsocket, RI 02895

although first I want to go to another store and see if they have the same issue.

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight... and you certainly don't send a defenseless kid into one either!

This new trend of "for show" security guards has to stop. It's everywhere. I saw it at college when I was a student (following the VT incident they didn't arm their current guards... they just added more unarmed guards :banghead... it's at stores and malls everywhere... and more. Does the media know about this? It's a disaster waiting to happen... and I'm sure plenty of incidents point to it as being a disaster that HAS happened already too.

 

[.cheese.]

come to think of it, maybe this thread belongs in Activism?

 

[kd7nqb]

As an unarmed security officer who was until recently under 21. I can share a few thoughts.

1. His simple presence DOES deter some crime.

2. While being armed would be nice its an insurance nightmare for most companies.

3. Security particularly the unarmed side does not pay extremely well but being thats its a 24hr job it works great with school schedules. So the percentage of 18-25yr olds doing the job is very high.

 

[.cheese.]

I realize this.

I worked as a security guard when I was 19... and yes I was unarmed. I had my fair share of minor incidents to deal with... and fortunately I was never injured... even better - luckily nobody ever pulled a gun while I was there (although the store next door was robbed at gunpoint several times which scared the heck out of me at the time).

It doesn't make it OK though.... and especially in this instance when the reason they hired a guard was because there has been a string of incidents involving several armed men recently specifically targeting pharmacies.

Since when is it ok to shove ethics aside in favor of avoiding insurance difficulties? To put a kid intentionally in harms way knowing that he has no way of protecting himself seems to me to be unethical.

I realize the kid has a say in it too.... but having been an unarmed security guard like you and this kid... I realize that I did not know then what I know now. Had I been a bit more wise, I would NOT have taken the job.

 

[Daemon688]

An unarmed security guard at a pharmacy does not deter the crime they're trying to protect against. It's one thing to deter shoplifters, but it's another thing when you're trying to deter drug addicts or people trying to brew meth. Really, all it amounts to is a feel good move by management. If the kid had a problem with not being armed, then he wouldn't have taken the job would he? He also has the option of quitting his job if he cared that much. Just because company policy may says he can't have paper spray/tazer/knife doesn't mean he actually has to follow said policy.

 

[.cheese.]

they didn't hire the kid because of people buying too many (or trying to steal) products with DXM or other abused OTC substances.

This is why they hired him:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbspree1009nboct09,0,4085352.story

I haven't quite kept up with the exact number of incidents since, but my understanding is that it has not yet ceased. That story is from back in early October.

And nobody should have to break company policy to be able to protect themself.... especially if their job involves being put in harm's way.

I also think it's wrong that he's old enough to join the military, carry an automatic weapon with the military, and die for our country..... but he can't get a G class license nor have a handgun.

The best word I can think of for all of this is simply "Wrong."

it's just wrong... all of it.

 

[Prince Yamato]

The best word I can think of for all of this is simply "Wrong."

I would go with "dumb". The kid is useless in any situation. Will there be a price increase on products to pay for the additional expense incurred by hiring "security"? I'd pay more if the kid had a gun. He doesn't. You're basically paying more for a professional loiterer.

 

[Zen21Tao]

After serving in the Army, I worked as an unarmed security guard while starting my college career. In many cases, a security guard does have a very broad deterrent effect. The criminal has 2 specific goals, (1) get the greatest reward he can from his crime and (2) get away with the crime without being caught. Most often though, the deterrence affect of a security guard isn't to stop the crime itself, it is simply to motivate the criminal to choose a different target for his crime. In other words, to receiving the greatest reward with the lowest amount of risk.

The main factor regarding whether or not their would be a deterrent affect here in this situation has more to do with whether or not their are alternate targets readily available for the criminal and whether or not these alternate targets will have just as high of a pay out (risk vs. reward) as the targeted pharmacy. If the criminal can rob another target with the same expected payout without having to contend with a security guard, then the presence of the security guard may indeed have a deterrent affect.

 

[bigdog21]

......

 

[bigdog21]

...,,,

 

[Robert Hairless]

It's the Virgnia Tech Security System and you misunderstand it. It's not intended to prevent serious crimes and can't possibly deter serious criminals.

The Virginia Tech Security System is designed to make people feel safer. You know that there's a difference between feeling safe and being safe, and that the two are not the same. You also know that feeling safe is the enemy of being safe: when people feel safe they take no responsibility for themselves and assume that someone else has them protected. Most people don't know that and don't want to know it.

Euphoria is their drug of choice. CVS understands drug marketing very well.

 

[S-K]

I was an assistant store manager at a CVS for two years. Believe me...the kid is a "feel-good" measure. As a matter of fact, the store manager probably has an option to not have him there at all.

In my store all he would have been good for is distracting the younger female staff.

 

[Glockamania®]

I worked as a security guard during my college years and my only weapon was my walkie-talkie.

 

[Hobie]

I served as an unarmed security guard, on official duty for the US Army. Other "guards" on my post were stabbed and beaten.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

.chesse stated in his post that a "string of armed robberies" had been reported. That tell me that the perps had guns. Do you really think that an unarmed 18 yo is going to be a deterrant to an armed robber? I don't!:banghead: And I'd hate to see a kid kill be cause of some companies stupidity!

Note: The bold text is my emphasis.

 

[welldoya]

When I was in college I needed a summer job and saw an ad for a security guard. I went to talk to the guy and he said the job was at night at a construction site in a bad part of town. He said I needed to get a haircut (I had just gotten one)
I asked him if he supplied a gun or did I carry my own ? He said no guns, no protection of any kind. The job paid minimum wage. I told him he was crazy and walked out.

 

[willbrink]

Well, he’s a deterrent, and failing that, a human bullet magnet!

 

[ilbob]

I'm not sure why, but the presence of uniformed guards (armed or not) does indeed tend to reduce crime in retail settings, at least in some cases.

I worked armed and unarmed security while I was in school too. I used to stand inside the entrance of a department store some weekends. All of the loss prevention people were women and were very good at catching shoplifters but they had a lot of weekend snatch and grab problems for which a uniformed guard was much more of a deterrent.

Several times I saw people approach, notice me, and just walk off. The snatch and grab problem was all but eliminated on weekends at this store (weekends was when they had the most problems), but in some respects it just moved to other stores in the same mall.

I never did quite understand why the snatch and grab was mostly a weekend phenomenon.

 

[ilbob]

When I was in college I needed a summer job and saw an ad for a security guard. I went to talk to the guy and he said the job was at night at a construction site in a bad part of town. He said I needed to get a haircut (I had just gotten one)
I asked him if he supplied a gun or did I carry my own ? He said no guns, no protection of any kind. The job paid minimum wage. I told him he was crazy and walked out.

Used to be that construction site insurance required that someone be there 24/7 or it be fenced in. These days you can rent the fencing, so it is usually cheaper to go that route. 25 or 30 years ago, fence rental was not all that common. I spent a fair amount of time bored to tears on construction sites. Sometimes they would let you sit in the trailer, so at least you had some heat. Other times they locked it up and you were on your own. One place it was the middle of winter and no place with heat, so I had to sit in car and run it to keep from freezing.

 

[The Wiry Irishman]

As a former CVS employee, and as a former employee that got to come in to work and hear the place had been robbed at gunpoint the previous night, I can't say I find this very surprising. CVS doesn't care in the least about their hourly employees. The guard is there to either make the customers feel better or to deter shoplifting.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight... and you certainly don't send a defenseless kid into one either!

First of all, your post sounds like that of one of the Million Mom March and other anti-gun advocates that called adults "kids." We don't stand for that sort of label when they use it to refer to adults and so we should not make that same hysterical generalization.

Second, they are not sending the man to a gunfight unarmed. For it to be a gun fight, both sides have to be shooting.

Third, just because the guy is unarmed does not mean he is defenseless.

 

[.cheese.]

First of all, your post sounds like that of one of the Million Mom March and other anti-gun advocates that called adults "kids." We don't stand for that sort of label when they use it to refer to adults and so we should not make that same hysterical generalization.

Reality check:

The guy IS a kid. I shouldn't have to tip-toe around the reality. Call a spade a spade. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to have a gun, it just means he's very young. Whatever negative connotations you have with that word are your problem, not mine... with all due respect. Not to mention that I clearly said that I take issue with him not being able to have a gun. To lump me in with the anti crowd is downright insulting.

Second, they are not sending the man to a gunfight unarmed. For it to be a gun fight, both sides have to be shooting.

I see.... so because he doesn't have a gun, it isn't a gunfight. Ok then... I'll rephrase. They're sending him into a potentially disastrous situation with an increased likelihood that bullets will be heading in his general direction. Big difference.

Third, just because the guy is unarmed does not mean he is defenseless.

What is this, a Chuck Norris flick? Is he going to round-house kick bullets away from him? Are you seriously asserting that somebody who is hired to protect against armed-robbers, who is entirely unarmed, is NOT at a serious disadvantage?

Sure, he can run and hide... and granted that would probably be a wise idea. He's still at a major disadvantage though.

 

[CajunBass]

I've been both an armed and an unarmed guard. Either way my job was not to confront robbers, shoplifters, or little green men from Mars. My job was to observe, and take notes, and give a report to the police. I could do just as good a job unarmed as armed.

Actually a good argument can be made that an unarmed guard is less likely to be shot. At least in my experience. At one of the jobs I worked we were armed. Two guys came in one night, walked up the armed guard standing in the guard house door and shot him dead right there. When they got caught they admitted they shot him because he was armed.

 

[230RN]

I rarely quote entire posts, but Robert Hairless' thinking is rather complete and concise and bears repeating:

It's the Virgnia Tech Security System and you misunderstand it. It's not intended to prevent serious crimes and can't possibly deter serious criminals.

The Virginia Tech Security System is designed to make people feel safer.

You know that there's a difference between feeling safe and being safe, and that the two are not the same.

You also know that feeling safe is the enemy of being safe: when people feel safe they take no responsibility for themselves and assume that someone else has them protected.

Most people don't know that and don't want to know it.

Euphoria is their drug of choice.

+1

 

[Double Naught Spy]

No cheese, what is insulting is calling a man a kid. The anti crowd does this quite a bit to get their stats to look more impressive. Like I said, it is a trick pro-gun folks call them out on regularly. You are committing the same error and it is just as invalid. I am sorry you feel insulted. If you don't speak like an anti in this regard, then you won't have to feel insulted.

As for understanding defenses, you seem to be of the impression that to defend oneself, you need a weapon of some sort with which to strike or otherwise impact the enemy. That isn't the case. Defense if about not getting harmed. One way in which this can happen is by a use of force against an aggressor to stop the aggressor. This is where the use of weapons comes in. The other way is to avoid the harm. This is why gun and defense schools make the blatant point of getting to cover or egressing from the situation. On top of that CVS is fully of potential weapons including wooden and aluminum canes to use as clubs, any number of heavy impact objects, hair spray, chemical cleaners, etc.

No, you don't have to be Chuck Norris, but you would have to be blind to work at a CVS and not be aware of all of the potential weaponry available to you. The notion that the security guard MAN is defenseless because he does not have a weapon on his person is a very defeatest perspective.