CVS declares first victims ahead of time

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think being armed helps if you are just inside or outside the door just sitting or standing there. If anyone chooses to violently attack the store, as stated above, being armed just makes you the first to go. Both armed and unarmed guards provide some deterrant effect, but from society's standpoint they just cause crime to move to easier targets.
I would prefer the security guard sit in a back room with a shotgun. A sign at the entrance stating the guard's presence could be used to deter. The sign could be used without the guard for companies worried about liability.
 
Usually a matter of money!

After I left the police department, I spent a number of years in private security. During that time a grocery chain, Bi-Lo, was experiencing a rash of armed robberies - we placed security officers with shotguns in the elevated offices (offices that allowed management to observe the entire store were popular then). Word got out. Robberies stopped.

In discussing security with potential clients, I usually asked them what they were hoping to accomplish and if they wanted armed or unarmed. I turned down a number of contracts for unarmed officers because I was not willing to place any of my team in a high risk situation unarmed.

For years there has been debate within the ownership/management of security providers concerning armed vs unarmed officers. At one time very few companies offered a choice; it was unarmed or nothing. Today most of the better security providers offer either but armed costs more due to the extra training, extra testing to ensure suitability and increased supervision.

CVS is probably no different than most corporations and is seeking to obtain maximum benefit for minimum investment - probably without even thinking about the possibility of a robbery happening anyway and perhaps the security officer getting hurt or killed.

I think Cheese is correct to contact CVS and politely point out that for security to provide maximum benefit, the officer should be armed.

As a side note, I am willing to bet that if any corporation were to try out a reverse of the "No Guns" signs and posted "Holders of Concealed Carry Permits are Welcome in Our Store" signs they would see a drop in criminal activity. Think about it - how many robberies occur at gun shops?

John
Charlotte, NC
 
In discussing security with potential clients, I usually asked them what they were hoping to accomplish and if they wanted armed or unarmed. I turned down a number of contracts for unarmed officers because I was not willing to place any of my team in a high risk situation unarmed.
Many of the clients we had wanted unarmed. Some claimed it was an insurance issue. Some were afraid their employees would be concerned over the gun being present. Others did not want to pay the small premium.

A very few requested armed guards.
 
Reality check: Being an unarmed security guard is not a high risk occupation. Not in the top ten any way.

Top 10 high-risk jobs are:
1. Loggers
2. Pilots
3. Fishermen
4. Structural steel workers
5. Garbage Collectors
6. Ranchers and Farmers
7. Roofers
8. Linemen (power pole workers)
9. Truck drivers and driver/sales people
10. Taxi drivers.

Anyway, this thread doesn't say much about CVS but says a huge amount about the harm the drug war is causing. Having an unarmed guard will push criminals towards pharmacies that don't. Then they'll get unarmed guards too and the criminals will just deal with it... and the guards will start being armed. The risk, and danger, will ratchet up and all the while scared people will blame the guns and will call for more anti- laws. All because the "drug war" creates an incredibly profitable black market in drugs.
 
Are we perhaps beginning to stray from the topic into a semantic blind alley in arguing about whether someone under age 21 should be called a "kid" or a "man"? There's a distinction between the age of majority (when a person assumes legal control and responsibility for her own life) and the age of license (when he qualifies to perform specific acts with governmental permission).

When Cheese refers to the young man as a "kid" he's using the age of license --21-- to carry a legal handgun as a licensed security guard. The law does not recognize the under-21-year-old as an adult for that purpose and this under-21-year-old acknowledged that situation and called it to Cheese's attention. For the government, the law, Cheese, and the under-21-year-old he is in fact a kid in this situation. He might be supporting himself, a family, his aged 39-year-old mother, two dogs and a pet chimpanzee, and be acting as a man should in all other respects too but he does not have the ability to act as a fully qualified adult in this situation. That distinction, I think, is fundamental to the good point that Cheese has made.

As for Cheese's point that this under-21-year-old is defenseless in this situation, it's worth pausing to take a few deep breaths and reconsider the sense in arguing against it. Cheese noted that the CVS pharmacy has been the target for several armed robberies. The uniformed guard was placed in that pharmacy to deter and respond in some meaningful way to an attempted armed robbery. Indeed there are potential weapons--"including wooden and aluminum canes to use as clubs, any number of heavy impact objects, hair spray, chemical cleaners, etc."--in that pharmacy and indeed they can be quite effective. That's why the uniformed police do not carry firearms and are armed instead with clubs, hair spray, chemical cleaners, etc., and why citizens should be required to use those same potential weapons instead of being licensed to carry firearms.

In this situation the unarmed guard is an under-21-year-old who is posted in a uniform that marks him as the responder to armed robberies and, therefore, a target. But he is not allowed the means to respond with force equal to that which can be anticipated from armed robbers. His possible deterence to shoplifters and little old ladies with pointy umbrellas is not the issue. He is a target.

Contrariness sometimes is only contrariness and an unsatisfactry substitute for kicking the cat.
 
In situations where an armed guard might immediately be shot, allow the guard to carry concealed. I don't believe in the philosophy of unarmed security guards, for the same reason why I don't agree with any company that forbids its employees from carrying.

I am a professional security guard with five years of experience. The first year was unarmed, and the rest were armed. I will not willingly put myself into that situation again. Of course, the fact that armed work pays better is nice too.
 
Reality check: Being an unarmed security guard is not a high risk occupation. Not in the top ten any way.

Fallacy. Odds of being a victim in general are low, but MANY on this site advocate preparedness - CCW. Now in the CVS case specifically, being an unarmed security guard IS potentially a high risk occupation. And someone wants to argue that an unarmed guard is appropriate and not defenseless? Why concealed carry then? Go learn a martial art, carry a cane, or even better look around for the random brick, stick, or trashcan that you can readily wield in the event of an attack. Er...
 
The 'guard' is about the same as a cardboard cutout. Potential robbers don't know if he's armed or not, and once they figure that out he's the first to be taken out.
 
It's not just CVS that doesn't care about it's employees..most retail companies just use 'em up,so to speak.I work a part time job at a retail pharmacy that prohibits ccw,or even pocket knives...
 
Quote:
"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."

I would make a bet that if the security guard took any sort of action either offensive or even defensive to save his life in an attack he would find himself out of a job and no thanks. Corporations have a record of doing this to "protect themselves" from "rash actions" of their employees no matter how badly injured or even killed the employee may be.
 
Insurance company studies show that homes with even a token fence, like a picket fence or even those foot high fences used to mark out flower beds, were a great deal less likely to be burgalarized or robbed by home invaders than a house which had no fence at all.
Its psychological.

At the same time even an unarmed guard means theres at least one more person in the store that might get off a 911 call on a cellphone or trigger an alarm before the crook can get control of the situation.

A lot of armed robberies also involve non firearm type weapons such as various clubs, bats, or knives.
A face full of Mace or a stun gun can generally deal with that sort of situation.

Personally I would not let a son of mine work unarmed. He'd have a handgun whether his boss knew about it or not. Same applies if they worked behind the register for that matter. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
 
Hey, I work security for a law enforcement agency and we are unarmed, but expected to respond when the S hits the F. They wouldn't even let the girls carry pepper spray. But we carry handcuffs for the officers at headquarters because they don't want to do it themselves. The stupidity is everywhere.
 
It just struck me that the Publix grocery store in downtown St. Petersburg, near where I used to live six months ago, had an armed security guard at the entrance.

I mention this because it suddenly struck me, six months after the fact, that I didn't even really take notice of the fact that the guy had a weapon. On some level my brain registered that it was a .357 Mag, probably a S&W, but that it didn't register in my mind as being unusual or noteworthy. I suppose when you work all day long in an environment where being unarmed brings questioning looks, it starts to seem normal.
 
It just struck me that the Publix grocery store in downtown St. Petersburg, near where I used to live six months ago, had an armed security guard at the entrance.

I mention this because it suddenly struck me, six months after the fact, that I didn't even really take notice of the fact that the guy had a weapon. On some level my brain registered that it was a .357 Mag, probably a S&W, but that it didn't register in my mind as being unusual or noteworthy. I suppose when you work all day long in an environment where being unarmed brings questioning looks, it starts to seem normal.

More than likely it is a Taurus. Armed security guard jobs do not pay well in Florida. It will also be loaded with .38 Special rounds, and hollow points are authorized at the discretion of the security firm. This tends to mean that they are not authorized.

The shame is that CVS is even bothering with this. This kid (I'll get to that) is no more likely to deter a group of men intent on armed robbery than the presence of thousands of CCW holders in this area. The pair has hit five stores in Broward County (Fort Lauderdale) and there have been similar robberies in Palm Beach County now. Putting a uniformed security guard in the store at night is silly. He might chase off a few shoplifters, but the robbers have done a professional job and walk in waving pistols. The guard will be the first person to be approached. Even an armed guard wouldn't do any good sitting at the doorway of the store. His gun would make a nice addition to the robbers' haul, but that's all it is likely to do.

The word kid is appropriate. Age brings experience and wisdom, youth do not. Older and wiser may be a cliche, but there's a reality behind it. Most people in their thirties and forties will not do things we tried when we were teens. We've learned. An older guard is also expected to know a few things about what might precede a robbery. The younger guard probably received the same amount of training that I had when I worked for a national company on the weekends one summer: none at all.

Regarding the presence of "other weapons" at the store, yes, anything can be a weapon in desperation. It is not a good idea to confront criminals armed with guns with weapons other than guns, particularly when the guns are available. Walgren's also sells makeup and nail polish removers, as well as timers and glue. A 19 year old McGyver aspirant could fashion a TPTA shaped charge and rig the cotton ball aisle to detonate and non lethally impede the bad guys, provided there are a couple of commercial breaks to construct the device. Probably the better idea is to hire an experienced, armed guard, who might actually take a look around the parking lot once in a while, and try to be safe rather than feel safe.
 
Taking time to draft a letter to CVS corporate that will do nothing. Reminds me of an old Styx song. Forgot which one though.
 
I've noticed a trend observing security officers over the years.

Places that want to protect property hire armed officer: Scrap metal yards, Truck trailer lots, car dealership inventory lots, banks.

Places that want to protect actual people hire unarmed: Malls, pharmacies, wal-mart.. etc

Capitalism, ain't it great.

Then again.. there was this one bank that had an unarmed officer.. and was a double wide trailer in a corn field... they got robbed a lot.
 
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.

The original post stated "armed robberies". I take this to mean the robbers are using guns (but I may be mistaken on this point). But if this is a fact I do not believe "wooden and aluminum canes to use as clubs, any number of heavy impact objects, hair spray, chemical cleaners, etc." are going to be very effective against flying lead!!

PS: I don't think the age of the security guard is relevant to the issue!
 
Sometimes it doesn't matter if the guard is armed or not...if upper management is willing to roll over to the lawyer's wishes. I have a friend who is an armed security guard for the FAA in an airport. If there is trouble he is instructed to call the cops AND NEVER UNHOLSTER HIS WEAPON. EVER. NO MATTER WHAT.

Why bother having it?

And his boss is the government.

I've other friends in the same situation doing armed security in other areas (Best Buy, UPS) who have told me the same thing. They have them, but are not allowed to use them. It seems if you want a to use a gun in your armed security job, you'd be better off becoming a police officer and getting a second part time security job to enhance your meager earnings like so many cops around here do.
 
As a former security officer with several years experience, I can say:

The weapon is used for the same reason as we all use it, self defense. It can also be used like LEOs use it in the course of apprehension or to protect clients. This of course varies state to state and is dependent on what the employer allows. My assignments were mostly high crime areas: low income food store shoplifting details, construction, section 8 housing community patrol, late night fast food joints, etc.

I never stood at the front door while in uniform, despite the managers' demands. Once I explained why, they mostly understood.

Plainclothes is an option but does not act as a deterrent. Was working a grocery store once that was robbed while I was there. Had just come around the front, walked to the back, when they called for help over the intercom. I'm sure I was made,anyway, since I was the only white guy in the ghetto.

Uniformed or not, I preferred irregular passes around the front or retail locations, loitering in the back at odd stops. NEVER set a pattern.

I never worked unarmed. Sometimes I had 2 backups as well as an economy size pepper gas and baton, long arm in the vehicle. When you're in a deserted location, you want all the luck you can carry.

One December I was posted in a liquor store all month. Lost count of the number of sober patrons that thought I was a cardboard cutout until they tried to get around me.

Most people don't see that you are armed or unarmed. They see a uniform. They recognize that you are not an LEO, other than that they don't care. The area I worked in, and I suspect that this is true more often than not, was not usually what you'd think of, as a "normal" citizen of the community. I dealt with a subset of society made up of criminals, thugs, partiers, juvenile delinquents, white trash, homeless, and the occasional "shouldn't be out at night" citizen. And of course the employees of certain establishments, that may or may not fit into one of the mentioned categories.

My "clientele" knew I was security, but also knew I wouldn't hesitate to arrest them or get into a scrap. We knew each other in an institutional sort of way. The ground rules were pretty established. It wasn't like your typical soccor mom running into me at the mall and wondering exactly what I could or couldn't do. They respected my authority, and occasionally challenged it. It was rare for me to work with "normal" people, although I did work a couple of malls, armed. Used to get people in the malls asking/telling me that my gun wasn't loaded. Haha!
 
The word kid is appropriate. Age brings experience and wisdom, youth do not. Older and wiser may be a cliche, but there's a reality behind it.

So the MMM and other anti groups are correct in referring to folks aged 18-22 as "kids" because they don't have experience?

Given what I have read in this thread, I am not sure why y'all are so up in arms against CVS per se. You should be up in arms against any and all unarmed guard situations and any and all companies that provide unarmed guards.

In the words of Sally Struthers, "Do it for the children." Do it for the kids. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top