NationStates Jolt Archive

Always low prices, always.


"A man suspected of shoplifting goods from an Atascocita Wal-Mart — including diapers and a BB gun — had begged employees to let him up from the blistering pavement in the store's parking lot where he was held, shirtless, before he died Sunday, a witness said.

An autopsy for the man, identified as Stacy Clay Driver, 30, of Cleveland, was scheduled for Monday, but officials said results probably would be delayed by a wait for toxicology tests.

Driver's family, as well as one emergency worker, are questioning company procedure, including whether Wal-Mart workers administered CPR after they realized he needed medical attention.

When Atascocita Volunteer Fire Department paramedics arrived, Driver was in cardiac arrest, said Royce Worrell, EMS director. Worrell said Monday he heard from investigators that Wal-Mart employees administered CPR to Driver, but he was not sure that happened.

"When we got there, the man was facedown (in cardiac arrest) with handcuffs behind his back," Worrell said. "That's not indicative of someone given CPR."

Wal-Mart employees referred calls to the Harris County Sheriff's Department, where homicide detectives are investigating the death.

"We're just not able to provide any comment at this time ... ," said Christi Gallagher, spokeswoman at Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.

Jim Lindeman, a lawyer representing Driver's family, said the family is devastated. "We're waiting to learn the results of the Sheriff's Department investigation," he said.

No charges have been filed. "The determining factor will be the (autopsy) report in whether we go forward with any charges," said Lt. John Martin, Sheriff's Department spokesman.

Driver lived in Cleveland, where his parents own a small business, Lindeman said. Driver was a master carpenter with a 2-month-old son and was about halfway through taking flying courses to get his pilot's license, Lindeman said.

Employees told investigators Driver had walked out the store with a package of diapers, a pair of sunglasses, a BB gun and a package of BBs, Martin said.

Lindeman said otherwise. "It's our belief he was not shoplifting," he said.

Houston lawyer Charles Portz was outside the store at 6626 FM 1960 East when employees chased Driver into the parking lot Sunday afternoon.

Portz said three employees caught Driver, who twisted and turned until his shirt came off and he broke free and ran.

"They chased him right past me," said Portz, who followed the chase, then saw four or five employees hold Driver on the ground. Driver was pleading with them to let him up, Portz said. "The blacktop was just blistering," he said.

The high temperature at Bush Intercontinental Airport Sunday was 96 degrees.

Portz said one of the Wal-Mart employees had Driver in a choke hold as other employees pinned his body to the ground.

"He was begging, 'Please, I'm burning, let me up,' " Portz said of Driver. "He'd push himself up off the blacktop, like he was doing a push-up.

"About 30 people were saying, 'Let him up, it's too hot,' " Portz said. He said another employee brought a rug for Driver to lie on, but one of those holding Driver said he was fine where he was. "After about five minutes, (Driver) said, 'I'm dying, I can't breathe, call an ambulance,' " Portz said.

Employees struggled with Driver before he was handcuffed, Martin said.

"There was a struggle, and when they finally succeeded after getting him detained in handcuffs, he continued to struggle," Martin said.

After Driver was handcuffed, Portz said one employee had his knee on the man's neck and others were putting pressure on his back.

"Finally the guy stopped moving" and the employees got off him, Portz said. "They wouldn't call an ambulance.

"I looked at him and said, 'Hey, he's not breathing,' but one guy told me (Driver) was just on drugs. I told them his fingernails were all gray, and finally they called an ambulance."

Martin said investigators have no indication that Driver was intoxicated.

He also said a review of surveillance tape showed that nine minutes had elapsed between the time employees "got (Driver) under control and the time EMS showed up."

Worrell said paramedics arrived two minutes, 19 seconds after they received the call. Paramedics performed CPR on Driver en route to Northeast Medical Center Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Store employees told investigators Driver entered the store with an item marked with a sticker indicating it had been paid for, then switched the sticker to a more expensive item and tried to leave with it."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3301862

Why couldn't they hold him inside the store? Seems stupid.

one of those holding Driver said he was fine where he was.[/B] "After about five minutes, (Driver) said, 'I'm dying, I can't breathe, call an ambulance,' " Portz said.

For starters, find out who said that and nail his ass for multiple charges, including depraved indifference.

We needed another reason not to shop at Wal-Mart?

For starters, find out who said that and nail his ass for multiple charges, including depraved indifference.
Reckless negligence or even involuntary manslaughter, I say.

We needed another reason not to shop at Wal-Mart?
I've never been. And gladly.

Does the title of this thread remind anyone else of the WallMart episode of South Park?

Does the title of this thread remind anyone else of the WallMart episode of South Park?
I stopped watching after it started being kicked all over the scheds. Knowing Parker and Stone, they probably played both sides off the middle.

Why, what was that episode called, Sdaeriji?

lol that episode was one of the best

I stopped watching after it started being kicked all over the scheds. Knowing Parker and Stone, they probably played both sides off the middle.

Why, what was that episode called, Sdaeriji?

"Here comes another Walmart", I think ... it was hilarious.

The name of the episode was "Something Walmart This Way Comes."

Anyway, I love the title of this thread. It reminds me of the "SUV Kills Three" title, or the "Rifle Shoots Four" titles. It sounds like there's no human element at all, like Walmart just woke up one day and decided to go on a killing spree.

The title is a bit misleading. Walmart didn't murder the customer. It is employees who I feel should be held criminally liable for homicide.

I've never been. And gladly.Lucky Bastard.
I have been, unfortunatly. I'm scarred for life.

The title is a bit misleading. Walmart didn't murder the customer. It is employees who I feel should be held criminally liable for homicide.
Nope. Law holds that an employer is responsable for an employees actions.

Nope. Law holds that an employer is responsable for an employees actions.

Well then they should be held criminally liable too (the manager at the store). Not the corporate CEOs or anything.

Well then they should be held criminally liable too (the manager at the store). Not the corporate CEOs or anything.
Why not. Are you aware that Walmart is the only major store that authorizes the use of force to detain suspected shoplifters?

The title is a bit misleading. Walmart didn't murder the customer. It is employees who I feel should be held criminally liable for homicide.The employees must have been trained in how to handle shoplifters. If Wal-Mart is training its employees to forcibly restrain people who have yet to be proved guilty of any crime, and who are crying out that they are in pain, then Wal-Mart is at fault.

Why not. Are you aware that Walmart is the only major store that authorizes the use of force to detain suspected shoplifters?

That's not wrong in itself; that reduces problems of shoplifting and saves money for the company. What is wrong is restraining them in a clearly dangerous situation and then being negligent in obtaining medical care. They could have easily brought him in to the store.

That's not wrong in itself; that reduces problems of shoplifting and saves money for the company. What is wrong is restraining them in a clearly dangerous situation and then being negligent in obtaining medical care. They could have easily brought him in to the store.
You are aware of how many times walmart has gotten sued for false imprisonment?


Let me use an example. If a truck driver runs over a six year old child, then the company can be held legally responsible for that crime.

I don't see the problem.

A man steals from the store, tries to escape. When they catch him by his shirt, he tears out of it and trys to escape again. They pin him down, and he claims we wants them to let him up. All the while, he's jumping around like nuts, which is going to make it look like he's trying to escape a third time, assuming that wasn't the actual case.

Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you the first damned thing he's going to do is run away again. The only thing keeping the guy from attempting a third/fourth escape were the several employees holding him down.

Given that he'd already proven himself a thief, and one refusing to take responsibility for his actions, they had no reason to believe his claims of actually coming to any harm.

Classic boy who called wolf.

The guy fucked up big time. He may not have deserved to die, but his actions were what brought about his death. If I had been the Wal-Mart employee, I wouldn't have believed him either. I surely wouldn't given him another chance to escape.

Why not. Are you aware that Walmart is the only major store that authorizes the use of force to detain suspected shoplifters?

I don't agree. In fact they are not criminally liable at all. It is those who used excessive force. The use of force does not mean excessive force.

You are aware of how many times walmart has gotten sued for false imprisonment?
Let me use an example. If a truck driver runs over a six year old child, then the company can be held legally responsible for that crime.

Quite a few; however, they aren't doing anything wrong by simply restraining someone suspected of shoplifting.

That doesn't really make sense, because it's punishing everyone for someone's negligence; now, if company policy directly influenced that accident (like if they made truckers drive beyond the legal hours per day), then they should be responsible. This seems more of a case of individual negligence than a company-wide problem.

US law, and laws in most other countries, say that people are innocent until proven guilty. Corporations are not allowed to take the law into their own hands. The whole corporation should, therefore, be held accountable. It's not legal to use force on a shoplifter - they have to use the police (private or public, but police all the same).
I am saying this because of the company's policy. If they did not have such a policy, it would be an individual matter instead.

I don't see the problem.

A man steals from the store, tries to escape. When they catch him by his shirt, he tears out of it and trys to escape again. They pin him down, and he claims we wants them to let him up. All the while, he's jumping around like nuts, which is going to make it look like he's trying to escape a third time, assuming that wasn't the actual case.

Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you the first damned thing he's going to do is run away again. The only thing keeping the guy from attempting a third/fourth escape were the several employees holding him down.

Given that he'd already proven himself a thief, and one refusing to take responsibility for his actions, they had no reason to believe his claims of actually coming to any harm.

Classic boy who called wolf.

The guy fucked up big time. He may not have deserved to die, but his actions were what brought about his death. If I had been the Wal-Mart employee, I wouldn't have believed him either. I surely wouldn't given him another chance to escape.
First off, he didn't steal anything. There is no indication that the walmart employees were correct. This would have most likely been another case in which walmart would have gotten sued for false imprisonment. Second, he was on the ground, face down on asphalt IN TEXAS for at least 10 minutes, with a person driving a knee into his back and holding his neck down forcefully WHILE HIS HANDS ARE CUFFED, and the store employees also refused to let him move onto a patch of carpet.

And you know what? He wasn't 'crying wolf'. The man died, you insensative fuck. He was innocent, and these assholes killed him.

I don't see the problem.

A man steals from the store, tries to escape. When they catch him by his shirt, he tears out of it and trys to escape again. They pin him down, and he claims we wants them to let him up. All the while, he's jumping around like nuts, which is going to make it look like he's trying to escape a third time, assuming that wasn't the actual case.

Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you the first damned thing he's going to do is run away again. The only thing keeping the guy from attempting a third/fourth escape were the several employees holding him down.

Given that he'd already proven himself a thief, and one refusing to take responsibility for his actions, they had no reason to believe his claims of actually coming to any harm.

Classic boy who called wolf.

The guy fucked up big time. He may not have deserved to die, but his actions were what brought about his death. If I had been the Wal-Mart employee, I wouldn't have believed him either. I surely wouldn't given him another chance to escape.

You didn't even read the damn article did you? It was more than the man pleading to let him up, another employee offered to get a rug to put the man on while restrained. I think the lot of the people should be booked for some crime I forgot the name of, and the guy doing it should be convicted of something between depraved indifference and manslaughter

It doesn't make sense screwing over someone who wasn't even responsible for what happened. Like it or not, Walmart was not responsible for what happened even if they authorize the use of force. If you are being attacked you have the right to fight the person off with a reasonable amount of force. What happened here was excessive force, and those who took part in the crime should be the ones sent to trial.

Quite a few; however, they aren't doing anything wrong by simply restraining someone suspected of shoplifting.

That doesn't really make sense, because it's punishing everyone for someone's negligence; now, if company policy directly influenced that accident (like if they made truckers drive beyond the legal hours per day), then they should be responsible. This seems more of a case of individual negligence than a company-wide problem.
Pardon, if the driver was negligent, the company has a responsiblity to ensure that their drivers are not negligent. It's generally assumed that you don't hire someone who isn't capable of doing the job.

To quote:
"respondeat superior
(rehs-pond-dee-at superior) n. Latin for "let the master answer," a key doctrine in the law of agency, which provides that a principal (employer) is responsible for the actions of his/her/its agent (employee) in the "course of employment." Thus, an agent who signs an agreement to purchase goods for his employer in the name of the employer can create a binding contract between the seller and the employer. Another example: if a delivery truck driver negligently hits a child in the street, the company for which the driver works will be liable for the injuries."

Pardon, if the driver was negligent, the company has a responsiblity to ensure that their drivers are not negligent. It's generally assumed that you don't hire someone who isn't capable of doing the job.

To quote:
"respondeat superior
(rehs-pond-dee-at superior) n. Latin for "let the master answer," a key doctrine in the law of agency, which provides that a principal (employer) is responsible for the actions of his/her/its agent (employee) in the "course of employment." Thus, an agent who signs an agreement to purchase goods for his employer in the name of the employer can create a binding contract between the seller and the employer. Another example: if a delivery truck driver negligently hits a child in the street, the company for which the driver works will be liable for the injuries."

That's the law, and I can't argue against it. It's not right, but that's the law.

The title is a bit misleading. Walmart didn't murder the customer. It is employees who I feel should be held criminally liable for homicide.

What if the guy was all drugged up, and the autopsy reveals the drugs killed him, not the extreme heat?

First off, he didn't steal anything. There is no indication that the walmart employees were correct.The Wal-Mart employee doesn't need enough evidence for a conviction to restrain him. I refer to the story you posted:Store employees told investigators Driver entered the store with an item marked with a sticker indicating it had been paid for, then switched the sticker to a more expensive item and tried to leave with it.You don't call that stealing? Because, I'm thinking the people watching this entire debacle on the security cameras would have disagreed.

Second, he was on the ground, face down on asphalt IN TEXAS for at least 10 minutes, with a person driving a knee into his back and holding his neck down forcefully WHILE HIS HANDS ARE CUFFED, and the store employees also refused to let him move onto a patch of carpet.As stated, he had already shown he would try to escape if let up. The fact that several employees were holding him down, and he was still able to throw them off:Portz said three employees caught Driver, who twisted and turned until his shirt came off and he broke free and ran."They chased him right past me," said Portz, who followed the chase, then saw four or five employees hold Driver on the ground. Driver was pleading with them to let him up, Portz said. "The blacktop was just blistering," he said.

The high temperature at Bush Intercontinental Airport Sunday was 96 degrees.

Portz said one of the Wal-Mart employees had Driver in a choke hold as other employees pinned his body to the ground.

"He was begging, 'Please, I'm burning, let me up,' " Portz said of Driver. "He'd push himself up off the blacktop, like he was doing a push-up.This is a man who can break free of 3 employees, and lift himself off the ground with a possible 5 holding him down.

If they had let any of the pressure up, he would have instantly used that moment to break free, and they would have lost him. Maybe if he didn't repeatedly try to escape, then struggle like a maniac, nobody would feel the need to keep him pinned down.

They made the right call, given the circumstances.

And you know what? He wasn't 'crying wolf'. The man died, you insensative fuck. He was innocent, and these assholes killed him.You have no more proof he was innocent than I do he was guilty, so don't feed me the bull****. And if he was really innocent, he wouldnt have been fucking running in the first place, now would he?

Cried wolf is a figure of expression. The man showed he would try to escape repeatedly, then bitched that he wanted people to give him some slack. You'd have to be a fool to not at least strongly suspect an escape attempt.

He should:

a) Never have stolen
b) Never have run
c) Never have thrashed around like a wild animal

If the man could have shown the slightest bit of restraint at any point, he'd be alive today.

You didn't even read the damn article did you? It was more than the man pleading to let him up, another employee offered to get a rug to put the man on while restrained. I think the lot of the people should be booked for some crime I forgot the name of, and the guy doing it should be convicted of something between depraved indifference and manslaughterSee my last post. The man was capable of lifting his body up even with 4 or 5 employees pinning him down. They would need to let his entire upper body get off the ground just to get the blanket under him. It would have been foolish, and almost certainly was the chance he would have used to escape them.

What if the guy was all drugged up, and the autopsy reveals the drugs killed him, not the extreme heat?

Then they should not be held liable. I'll wait for the police and DA's decision on this.

The thrashing on the ground was due to the heat - adrenaline will allow humans to do much more than they are normally capable of, such as lifting 4-5 employees. Because of company policy and such, the employees really didn't have a choice, but they should have gotten him on the carpet. They could have done that easily without losing him, and he'd probably be alive today. Assuming drugs were not involved (and quite possibly even if they were). 96F is not a friendly heat. On the asphalt, yes, it really would be death. That sounds like heat stroke.
Plus, if you don't have sufficient evidence for one way or another, it is innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.
Finally, we don't know that the relevant employees were watching the security tapes. In fact, they probably weren't. Security tapes generally don't see what they claimed happened - moving the stickers - which is why the police can't say that he did or did not steal. It is important to realize that the police think that he did not - and they have lots of experience in knowing such a thing. If anyone could know (who's alive), it would be them.

The Wal-Mart employee doesn't need enough evidence for a conviction to restrain him. I refer to the story you posted:You don't call that stealing? Because, I'm thinking the people watching this entire debacle on the security cameras would have disagreed.
And I'm thinking that the fact that the police department says that there was no crime says a bit more then what walmart's asscovering does.

As stated, he had already shown he would try to escape if let up. The fact that several employees were holding him down, and he was still able to throw them off:This is a man who can break free of 3 employees, and lift himself off the ground with a possible 5 holding him down.

Irrelevent to the fact that he was handcuffed and able to be moved. He was also surrounded by...oh, 30 some people. He wasn't going anywhere.

If they had let any of the pressure up, he would have instantly used that moment to break free, and they would have lost him. Maybe if he didn't repeatedly try to escape, then struggle like a maniac, nobody would feel the need to keep him pinned down.

Yep, he would have got up, killed a few people, and ran away all while having a heart attack. Sounds likely to me. Walmart, by the way, had no authority with which to restrain him. Walmart's security staff isn't law enforcement. They stepped over reasonable justification about fifteen miles back.

They made the right call, given the circumstances.

A call which killed that man. A call which legally they have no right to make.

You have no more proof he was innocent than I do he was guilty, so don't feed me the bull****. And if he was really innocent, he wouldnt have been fucking running in the first place, now would he?

Free country. I don't have to stop if a bunch of rent a cops say I have to, and if they do I'd sue them for false inprisonment. That is against the law.

Cried wolf is a figure of expression. The man showed he would try to escape repeatedly, then bitched that he wanted people to give him some slack. You'd have to be a fool to not at least strongly suspect an escape attempt.

He should:

a) Never have stolen
b) Never have run
c) Never have thrashed around like a wild animal

If the man could have shown the slightest bit of restraint at any point, he'd be alive today.
And the man would be alive today if the walmart employees showed a modicum of restraint and realized that killing a man over allegid shoplifting isn't worth it, nor legal. Now one innocent man is dead and the walmart corperation will most likely face a battery of wrongful death lawsuits.

And on top of all this, Walmart's employees refused to call an ambulance, despite repeated pleas from the man to do so (what the hell was he doing to do, hijack the ambulance?)

Hey, I'm not the morality police. You're free to disagree with me. But I stand by my beliefs.

I'll leave whether their actions were legal to the police. Frankly, I could care less. Laws are just standards we adopt for general use, they are not some absolute right and wrong.

My only concern was the way the situation was handled, which - given the unorthodox situation - was justified, in my opinion. I would have acted much the same in their place, and I don't find their decisions to be unreasonable.

That's just me though. I'm not going to force you to agree with me.

Hey, I'm not the morality police. You're free to disagree with me. But I stand by my beliefs.

I'll leave whether their actions were legal to the police. Frankly, I could care less. Laws are just standards we adopt for general use, they are not some absolute right and wrong.

My only concern was the way the situation was handled, which - given the unorthodox situation - was justified, in my opinion. I would have acted much the same in their place, and I don't find their decisions to be unreasonable.

That's just me though. I'm not going to force you to agree with me.
Really? So you support letting people who aren't law enforcement officers run around killing people? You do realize that's why we have police...

See my last post. The man was capable of lifting his body up even with 4 or 5 employees pinning him down. They would need to let his entire upper body get off the ground just to get the blanket under him. It would have been foolish, and almost certainly was the chance he would have used to escape them.
There was not a half dozen guys pinning him down, 3 at most, and what he can do depends how they were doing it.

PS. The employees said he was switching stickers? They also said they had given him CPR, which was contradicted by statements of the emergency medics when they got there. Unorthodox is irrelevant, he was not threatening bodily harm to any person and was accused of shop lifting by obviously a thuggish group of employees whose other "statements" were directly contradicted by other facts and statements

I would rather wait for what the DA does on this case.

A good point. There was only one pinning him down. At 96F, yes, he would have been able to lift himself up that much. Almost ANY animal could - it would be impossible for it not to! Pure instinct. There was NOTHING that man could have done once he was down besides what he did do. And any employee would have known that what they were doing would kill him - they live there and know EXACTLY what 96F on asphalt would mean.

Hey, what happened to the post that said there was only one? Whatever.

Hey, what happened to the post that said there was only one? Whatever.
I corrected it relying on context clues in the article

Nevermind, it says four to five at that point.

Really? So you support letting people who aren't law enforcement officers run around killing people? You do realize that's why we have police...Ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. I laugh. Truly, my sides doth split.

What's next for Exaggeration Theatre? Pro-choice means pro-killing-every-baby?

I stated they should have had the right to restrain him, regardless of a legal capacity to do so. His death was an accident caused by extenuating circumstances, much of which were caused by the man himself.

There was not a half dozen guys pinning him down, 3 at most, and what he can do depends how they were doing it.

PS. The employees said he was switching stickers? They also said they had given him CPR, which was contradicted by statements of the emergency medics when they got there. Unorthodox is irrelevant, he was not threatening bodily harm to any person and was accused of shop lifting by obviously a thuggish group of employees whose other "statements" were directly contradicted by other facts and statements"They chased him right past me," said Portz, who followed the chase, then saw four or five employees hold Driver on the ground.If holding him to the ground isn't pinning him to the ground, what is? I'm quoting my numbers based on the eye witness. Where do yours come from?

Finally, the question of CPR."When we got there, the man was facedown (in cardiac arrest) with handcuffs behind his back," Worrell said. "That's not indicative of someone given CPR."No statement was made that CPR was not given. There was only a statement by the people who were not even there that CPR did not seem to have been done.

They could have rolled him back over after attempting CPR in case he woke up, for an example.

tricky... really tricky.

For the Wal-mart employees:
Driver shouldn't have attempted the shoplifting. Period. his death does not aliviate or exscuse that fact.

the employees can restrain anyone they suspect is shoplifting, Happened to me once, and I had the receipt to prove I purchaced the items they thought I lifted.

Driver has attempted and succeeded to escape the employees more than once, proving that he needed to be physically restrained.


Against the Wal-mart employees
when he was handcuffed, then he could've been lifted up and moved into a shaded area by the numerous employees. Water and other cooling methods could have been employed to help aliviate his discomforture.

Most stores that size employ security guards to assist in the apprension of Shoplifters since the situation can turn deady. where was store security?

Most Employees are not trained to properly seize people, thus they should've gotten as much information they can, including vehicle plates and make/model, and phone it in. then the cops can pick him up properly.



If he was innocent of Shoplifting, why run? If he had paid for those items, then he would have the receipt still, but he didn't.

while his death is unfortunate, I would rather the police fully investigate this and render their judgement and not hash it out here untill the details made public.

For Syndenzia: Do you not know your First Aid? Or anything about the Fire Department?

Okay, someone from the Fire Department would be able to tell. A) CPR does not work with someone in hand cuffs. You can't get it right. Angles, movement, and all that. B) You cannot do CPR from the back. C) Once you start CPR, you do not stop until either the pulse returns or someone with higher first aid/medical skills comes. Or you CANNOT continue (which means that person would probably have gone to the hospital). It's the law, at least in CA, and I doubt it really differs in other states. This means that CPR would still have been administered, or at least one person would have blacked out. D) Ribs are almost inherently broken when CPR is administered. It is very obvious when ribs are broken.

There's probably even more to prove that one, but I really don't want to have to bother with thinking that much about something that I've already proven.

If he was innocent of Shoplifting, why run? If he had paid for those items, then he would have the receipt still, but he didn't.

I'm struck here by a sudden sense of deja-vu concerning the Brzailian chap shot on the underground by British police here.

Ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. I laugh. Truly, my sides doth split.

What's next for Exaggeration Theatre? Pro-choice means pro-killing-every-baby?

I stated they should have had the right to restrain him, regardless of a legal capacity to do so. His death was an accident caused by extenuating circumstances, much of which were caused by the man himself.
His death was nothing but an accident. They intentionally held him there when he was clearly in distress, and they continued to refuse to call an ambulence despite repeated requests to do so, only relenting after they saw that he was dead.

Finally, the question of CPR.No statement was made that CPR was not given. There was only a statement by the people who were not even there that CPR did not seem to have been done.

They could have rolled him back over after attempting CPR in case he woke up, for an example.

Oh, and no one wakes up from CPR until they've gone to the hospital and the doctors there do their work. CPR is for keeping a person's body (esp the brain) alive while waiting for the paramedics to come and do better - also just keeping him alive until they reach the hospital where the doctors can actually revive him and his heart. So no, they did not roll him back over after attempting CPR in case he woke up. If they even attempted CPR, it was by someone who is utterly incompetent, and at least by CA law, the family could sue for that person doing CPR when they did not know how, instead of letting someone who did know how do CPR.

Finally, the question of CPR.No statement was made that CPR was not given. There was only a statement by the people who were not even there that CPR did not seem to have been done.

They could have rolled him back over after attempting CPR in case he woke up, for an example.from all the CPR classes I've taken, CPR isn't given when a person has their arms pinned behind them. this can be dangerous for it will place undue pressure on his Ribcage and may cause the ribs to crack.

Neither does it make sense to "roll him back onto his front" after cpr was given and the person failed to revive.

in all fairness, no one probably administered CPR because they were not trained. More damaged can be done to internal organs from Improper Application of CPR that could lead to internal bleeding and death.

besides, they were probably in shock when they realized Driver stopped breathing.

I'm struck here by a sudden sense of deja-vu concerning the Brzailian chap shot on the underground by British police here.yeah, funny isn't it. :p

but it does make sense, if he did purchase those items, he would have the reciept. after all, he would've left the registers a miniute or two earlier. so why run?

and this time, it wasn't trained personnel that aprehended him, so the employees are also at fault.

yeah, funny isn't it. :p

but it does make sense, if he did purchase those items, he would have the reciept. after all, he would've left the registers a miniute or two earlier. so why run?

and this time, it wasn't trained personnel that aprehended him, so the employees are also at fault.
As I said earlier. You don't have to stop because a rent a cop tells you to. You can sue for false imprisonment if they place you into 'custody' and they don't have anything on you.

As I said earlier. You don't have to stop because a rent a cop tells you to. You can sue for false imprisonment if they place you into 'custody' and they don't have anything on you.so your point???

they stop Driver, and inquire as to if he purchased those items.
Driver shows his receipt and the Employees apologize, if he makes a big enough stink, he gets a discount coupon on his next visit.

But he ran, and not only ran, but escaped the employees multiple times, even to the point of loosing his shirt... for what... a chance to sue them? if that's what you're saying, then you just made me loose any and all sympathy for the deceased. He's just another person looking for a free ride.

he creates the illusion to make it look like he shoplifts so that he can take them to court? that makes as much sense as "rolling him back onto his stomach in case he wakes up."

Those kids who thought that they were acting like heroes by catching a SUSPECTED shoplifter are nothing but... half-brained homo sapiens with the brain capacity of a baboon.

Wal-Mart is a corporate company, and one item stolen is nothing to them. What those employees did has no justification. Absolutely none.

Driver did not attack them, they attacked him.
There is no proof that he stole, they assumed he did.
The only thing an employee is required to do is remember the individual's face, his clothes, his car's plate numbers, and what car he was driving. That's ALL an employee is expected to do. Not the use of force, no matter what the crap that person stole, if he even did.

I hold the employees, and the company as a whole responsible for not teaching their employees how to behave in such a scenario.

so your point???

they stop Driver, and inquire as to if he purchased those items.
Driver shows his receipt and the Employees apologize, if he makes a big enough stink, he gets a discount coupon on his next visit.

But he ran, and not only ran, but escaped the employees multiple times, even to the point of loosing his shirt... for what... a chance to sue them? if that's what you're saying, then you just made me loose any and all sympathy for the deceased. He's just another person looking for a free ride.

he creates the illusion to make it look like he shoplifts so that he can take them to court? that makes as much sense as "rolling him back onto his stomach in case he wakes up."
No, that's entirely unrelated (eg, if I was in a store and told to stop, I wouldn't, and if they forced me not to and restrained me while I did nothing, I'd sue for false imprisonment), though if he lived after this crap he would most definitally sue for at least medical costs. Walmart's going to pay through the nose for this.

I'm going to put myself on the side of Sydenzia and Walmart.
If a man is commiting a crime, he should be stopped through the fastest and most efficient way possible. If that means that a thief dies, well, one less thief in an overcrowded world.

I'm going to put myself on the side of Sydenzia and Walmart.
If a man is commiting a crime, he should be stopped through the fastest and most efficient way possible. If that means that a thief dies, well, one less thief in an overcrowded world.
No proof that he commited a crime. I wasn't aware that walmart security was authorized to act as judge, jury and executioner :rolleyes:

I'm going to put myself on the side of Sydenzia and Walmart.
If a man is commiting a crime, he should be stopped through the fastest and most efficient way possible. If that means that a thief dies, well, one less thief in an overcrowded world.
Does anyone else besides me not see where in the article it said it was proven he stole, as opposed to what the employees that tracked him down and practically killed him said.

I'm going to put myself on the side of Sydenzia and Walmart.
If a man is commiting a crime, he should be stopped through the fastest and most efficient way possible. If that means that a thief dies, well, one less thief in an overcrowded world.

If everybody that committed a crime was killed then I think that underpopulation would become the pressing concern rather than overpopulation.

If everybody that committed a crime was killed then I think that underpopulation would become the pressing concern rather than overpopulation.
I didn't say kill them, I said stop them. If a thief is running and the only way to keep them from getting away is to shoot them down, then you should do so.

No proof that he commited a crime. I wasn't aware that walmart security was authorized to act as judge, jury and executioner
No, just as a force to prevent escape. He was running, and they must have had some reason to go towards him in the first place. Anyway, I don't have all the details, so I can't comment on the specifics, just the principle.

No, that's entirely unrelated (eg, if I was in a store and told to stop, I wouldn't, and if they forced me not to and restrained me while I did nothing, I'd sue for false imprisonment), though if he lived after this crap he would most definitally sue for at least medical costs. Walmart's going to pay through the nose for this.Try it. go ahead and try it. do the exact same thing he did (actually taking something is up to you tho.)

and I'll bet you that your lawsuit won't succeed.

Those kids who thought that they were acting like heroes by catching a SUSPECTED shoplifter are nothing but... half-brained homo sapiens with the brain capacity of a baboon.

Wal-Mart is a corporate company, and one item stolen is nothing to them. What those employees did has no justification. Absolutely none.

Driver did not attack them, they attacked him.
There is no proof that he stole, they assumed he did.
The only thing an employee is required to do is remember the individual's face, his clothes, his car's plate numbers, and what car he was driving. That's ALL an employee is expected to do. Not the use of force, no matter what the crap that person stole, if he even did.

I hold the employees, and the company as a whole responsible for not teaching their employees how to behave in such a scenario.
Agreed with all points except the bolded one. it doesn't matter if it's a corporate company or a mom and pop store, stealing is stealing. period.

now for those who said they have no proof of theft.
Employees told investigators Driver had walked out the store with a package of diapers, a pair of sunglasses, a BB gun and a package of BBs, Martin said.Walmart (or all the ones I've been in here in Hawaii and on the mainland) has checkers at exits who randomly ask to see the Shoppers receipts and checks them off with the items they are carrying.

so why chase Drivers? maybe he didn't have a reciept to show them? the Cashiers are trained to give the customer their receipt with their change. the self check stand aways provides a receipt. If he forgot it at the Self check stand, he can spend less time it took running from the staff to retrieve his recept (if the employee watching the self check stand wasn't paying attention that is, for they would remind the customer to take the recept.) and he would then be let out.

so why try to run? Perhaps CSW was right and he was just looking for an exscuse to sue a big corporation by making himself look guilty and thus can waste the courts time with a frivoluous lawsuit.

Try it. go ahead and try it. do the exact same thing he did (actually taking something is up to you tho.)

and I'll bet you that your lawsuit won't succeed.

Walmart has gotten successfully sued for false imprisonment many times. I don't shop at walmart. I have also never shoplifted anything. I have nothing to hide, I merely do not wish to have to deal with rent-a-cops.

I didn't say kill them, I said stop them.

"If that means that a thief dies, well, one less thief in an overcrowded world."

If a thief is running and the only way to keep them from getting away is to shoot them down, then you should do so.

Yeah. Trial by a jury of your peers is such an antiquated and irrelevant notion these days. Who needs it when we have readily available handguns?

I didn't say kill them, I said stop them. If a thief is running and the only way to keep them from getting away is to shoot them down, then you should do so.


No, just as a force to prevent escape. He was running, and they must have had some reason to go towards him in the first place. Anyway, I don't have all the details, so I can't comment on the specifics, just the principle.
On what planet is it acceptable to use deadly force to protect property? At some point you let the police deal with it instead of going rambo on anyone who comes within five feet of your property.

so why chase Drivers? maybe he didn't have a reciept to show them?
Goddamn Receipt stealing goblins, they got me in the (mebbe) two minutes it took to reach the door.

the self check stand aways provides a receipt. If he forgot it at the Self check stand, he can spend less time it took running from the staff to retrieve his recept (if the employee watching the self check stand wasn't paying attention that is, for they would remind the customer to take the recept.) and he would then be let out.
So he ran (and lost his shirt . . . and looked like a total ass . . . oh yeah, and died) just to avoid spending a minute of his day? if that theory is true we may have found a Darwin winner.

Walmart has gotten successfully sued for false imprisonment many times. I don't shop at walmart. I have also never shoplifted anything. I have nothing to hide, I merely do not wish to have to deal with rent-a-cops.Got news for you. Every big name store has rent-a-cops. and they're watching you. either by camera or in person.

I used to work for a nationwide store (Macy's) and got to know the Rent-a-cops there very well, I can usually spot them when I'm shopping. they won't make a move until they are sure, and even then they will offer you a chance to explain. they won't automatically arrest you unless you do something stupid.

No proof that he commited a crime. I wasn't aware that walmart security was authorized to act as judge, jury and executioner :rolleyes:

Not yet anyways. If we have continued Bushevik/NeoCon dominance of the government then they very well might have the right granted to them, as well as immunity to accountability and lawsuits on top of that.

Got news for you. Every big name store has rent-a-cops. and they're watching you. either by camera or in person.

I used to work for a nationwide store (Macy's) and got to know the Rent-a-cops there very well, I can usually spot them when I'm shopping. they won't make a move until they are sure, and even then they will offer you a chance to explain. they won't automatically arrest you unless you do something stupid.
Oh yes, I know that they are watching me. I also know that they have nearly zero ability to do anything.

Oh yes, I know that they are watching me. I also know that they have nearly zero ability to do anything.again, try it... and you will see that it's only you who thinks they have Zero Ability to do anything.

they will watch, and if they're sure, they will try to apprehend.

Now in your favor of this thread, the argument here is for the Rent-a-cops, not the employee's themselves. they were in the wrong for it's not their job to catch the shoplifters if they run.

they are suppose to take as much information down. but not actually do the apprehending.

but again, I will wait for the verdict of the investigation before saying if anyone should be punnished.

On what planet is it acceptable to use deadly force to protect property? At some point you let the police deal with it instead of going rambo on anyone who comes within five feet of your property.
But maybe calling the police is too much, perhaps I should just say please, and then (if that doesn't stop them) I can cry a bit.
No, while someone is in the midst o a criminal act they are sacrificing all rights they might have had. Now, if I were stalking them down and killing them in their sleep, that would be a problem.

"If that means that a thief dies, well, one less thief in an overcrowded world."
Yes, and if you pay attention it says if. That means that if the only way to stop someone in the midst of a criminal act is to kill them, thats what should be done.
Yeah. Trial by a jury of your peers is such an antiquated and irrelevant notion these days. Who needs it when we have readily available handguns?
After the act is over (meaning the criminal has gotten away, or been apprehended) then it is time for trials and juries. Or should cops start traveling in buses so that they can carry a jury pool with them whenever they pull over a speeder?

On what planet is it acceptable to use deadly force to protect property? At some point you let the police deal with it instead of going rambo on anyone who comes within five feet of your property. I just realized, this is Housten right? don't they have some law that allows use of force to protect property? :confused:

Or should cops start traveling in buses so that they can carry a jury pool with them whenever they pull over a speeder?

The cops pulling over a speeder is the start of a potential judicial process. A shopworker or a rent-a-cop shooting dead a suspected thief is not.*



* well, it will probably lead to a judicial process, but the original suspect won't be the one on trial.

I just realized, this is Housten right? don't they have some law that allows use of force to protect property? :confused:
Force, and a stand your ground law (one that allows the use of deadly force in your own home if advanced upon, even if you have a way to escape, a law I disagree with. Far too many situations in which mistakes can be make), but I do not believe there is a law authorizing the use of deadly force to protect property. I believe this thread makes clear why that is so (mistakes can be made, and often are).

Yet another reason not to shop there.

Seriously, thoes employies are lucky I wasn't there.

Had I seen that, I would've kicked the one holding him down so hard in the head it probably would have killed him. (I did something like that at school once, the administration actually applauded me.)

I believe these people are guilty of at least second-degree murder. Same as if they took him and chained him to, say, an oven and turned it up to max.

Edit: And WTF is with people these days? "About 30 people were saying, 'Let him up, it's too hot...'" Why did not one of these people come to his aid when he was screaming for people to help him? Seriously, when the police got these, they probably would have applauded someone helping him from that situation, or at least not pay them any attention.

Always low prices, always.



"They chased him right past me," said Portz, who followed the chase, then saw four or five employees hold Driver on the ground. Driver was pleading with them to let him up, Portz said. "The blacktop was just blistering," he said.

The high temperature at Bush Intercontinental Airport Sunday was 96 degrees.

Portz said one of the Wal-Mart employees had Driver in a choke hold as other employees pinned his body to the ground.

"He was begging, 'Please, I'm burning, let me up,' " Portz said of Driver. "He'd push himself up off the blacktop, like he was doing a push-up.

"About 30 people were saying, 'Let him up, it's too hot,' " Portz said. He said another employee brought a rug for Driver to lie on, but one of those holding Driver said he was fine where he was. "After about five minutes, (Driver) said, 'I'm dying, I can't breathe, call an ambulance,' " Portz said.



That's terrible. :mad:

But maybe calling the police is too much, perhaps I should just say please, and then (if that doesn't stop them) I can cry a bit.

Or you could be intellegent about it, collect information and let people who are paid to deal with criminals deal with criminals instead of shooting a potentially innocent person (mistakes are notorious for happening.)

After the act is over (meaning the criminal has gotten away, or been apprehended) then it is time for trials and juries. Or should cops start traveling in buses so that they can carry a jury pool with them whenever they pull over a speeder?
Tickets can be either taken on face value, you don't contest them, or you can request a trial by jury.

Read the entire thread, but still, there is one thing I'm asking myself - I probably missed the very obvious answer - but they put him in handcuffs, right? And they wouldn't let him get up to shove the rug underneath him because they were afraid he'd run, right? Why the hell didn't they just cuff his legs? After all, this wasn't armed robbery; I don't think they had much to fear from him attacking them even if they would only have one pair of cuffs and cuffing his legs would mean they had to un-cuff his arms? Anyone? :confused:

Reckless negligence or even involuntary manslaughter, I say.
Negligence is a civil offense. Which, by the way, Wal-Mart will be paying a lot of money for.

Involuntary manslaughter (or negligent homicide,depending on the jurisdiction) sounds about right. Unfortunately, that usually means 6 months or so in jail. Then again, I have to think this guy's conscience, if he has one, is going to bother him for a lot longer than that.

Negligence is a civil offense. Which, by the way, Wal-Mart will be paying a lot of money for.

Involuntary manslaughter (or negligent homicide,depending on the jurisdiction) sounds about right. Unfortunately, that usually means 6 months or so in jail. Then again, I have to think this guy's conscience, if he has one, is going to bother him for a lot longer than that.
No, reckless negligence, not negligence, is a criminal action. It's what that guy with the park ride got convicted for because of his negligence in bypassing the safety equipment.

Try it. go ahead and try it. do the exact same thing he did (actually taking something is up to you tho.)

and I'll bet you that your lawsuit won't succeed.




Nah, this is a good lawsuit. These security guards were clearly negligent here. In fact, you could make a case for civil assault (although it's an iffy one). Wal-mart will settle this for a pretty hefty sum.

I don't see the problem.

A man steals from the store, tries to escape.
Actually some people employed by a complany alledge to have formed a belief that a man was shoplifting.

When they catch him by his shirt, he tears out of it and trys to escape again. They pin him down, and he claims we wants them to let him up. All the while, he's jumping around like nuts, which is going to make it look like he's trying to escape a third time, assuming that wasn't the actual case.
Most people do try to get away from people who are restraining them, it's hardly a surprise, however most of us accept that reasonable force against an unarmed person simply trying to 'get away' (as opposed to actually attempting to harm anyone) should not result in death.

Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you the first damned thing he's going to do is run away again. The only thing keeping the guy from attempting a third/fourth escape were the several employees holding him down.
Perhaps, but I contend that most reasonable people do not see the escape of a shoplifter (even if he made it away with his ill-gotten gains) as being nearly as bad as an unnecessary and avoidable death.

Given that he'd already proven himself a thief,
Unless you are aware of a legal trial that took place during the event, he had not proved himself a shoplifter, rather Walmart employees alledge that he is a shoplifter.

and one refusing to take responsibility for his actions, they had no reason to believe his claims of actually coming to any harm.
I so not believe the facts (as they are presented) are consistent with this assertion. Did not witnesses call attention to the fact that the restrained person appeared to need medical assistance? Did not one onlooker form the impression that the pavement was so hot he was willing to provide a rug for the restrained person to lie on, in order to protect his health. I do not believe it is a coincidence that witnesses formed an impression the man was in danger of coming to harm, despite there being no reason to do so, and simply as coincidence, the man then died. I suggest that it is not a random coincidence that the onlookers formed an impression the man was in danger and then he died, but rather that they formed the impression for a reason, specifically that it was apparent to any reasonable person, that this person was quite likely in some danger.

Classic boy who called wolf.

The guy fucked up big time. He may not have deserved to die, but his actions were what brought about his death.
Alledged actions. Evidently I assume (and hope) your comments are made with some presumption that the person suffered no diminishment in their capacity to be responsible for their actions. However there is no proof of this at this time. Do we want people suffering from senility, or otherwise of diminished capacity killed for actions they are not responsible for? I think most of us do not, so probably erring on the side of caution is a resonable expectation. Consider the alternative risks. If the employees had taken some action to ensure the person was not in danger it is possible their actions may have led to him escaping possibly with a few dollars worth of product, this is compared to the risk that someone who may or may not be 'legally culpable' for the actions they are alledged to have commited could be seriously injured or die. Mmm a shoplifter possibly not ending up in court and getting slapped on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and a few dollars in property lost, or a dead (and possibly innocent) person.

If I had been the Wal-Mart employee, I wouldn't have believed him either. I surely wouldn't given him another chance to escape.
So you would rather risk someone's life despite the fact that reasonable persons were able to reasonably ascertain that the person (who evidently did die) was possibly in some danger? Rather silly considering the relative risks (as outlined above) especially since even if he got away, there is some degree of chance he would later be apprehended (i.e. identified through the Walmart security camera footage). You might point out that the police might place a low profiling on chasing after someone caught shoplifting on tape, once the person got away. That being the case you can see the priorty society places on catching shoplifters. Compare that to the priorty society places on avoiding unnecessary deaths, hopefully that will bring an element of appropriote priority to your view of this incident.

but its walmart, they could lose a few billion and still be fine

but its walmart, they could lose a few billion and still be fine

...but he was an American, they could lose a few million people and still be fine.

No, reckless negligence, not negligence, is a criminal action. It's what that guy with the park ride got convicted for because of his negligence in bypassing the safety equipment.
Weird. The definitions of criminal offenses is different from state to state, but I've never heard of that one. In the codes that I know of that would generally be called negligent homicide. Of course, I don't practice criminal law so I'm a bit rusty on this stuff. The way I learned it, recklessness and negligence were two different stops on the mens rea spectrum.

Anyway, that's all splitting hairs. This guy is clearly guilty, although I bet he never gets charged. The focus here will end up being on the civil case.

...but he was an American, they could lose a few million people and still be fine.
A life is worth more than $30. Something the people who support this action seem to forget...

but its walmart, they could lose a few billion and still be fine
Hopefully the upshot of this will be that walmart realizes it's too expensive to have their security guards act like nazis and they will institute some better policies.

Of course, if they are in a tort reform jurisdiction, the law's ability to teach them an important lesson is severely hampered. Way to go politicians. Anyone noticed how much cheaper their insurance is now? Yeah, me neither.

A life is worth more than $30. Something the people who support this action seem to forget...

Do not mistake my poor attempts at humour as support for a bunch of rent-a-cops.

Do not mistake my poor attempts at humour as support for a bunch of rent-a-cops.
Oh I'm not implying that, you were just the first convenient person to quote ^.^

Weird. The definitions of criminal offenses is different from state to state, but I've never heard of that one. In the codes that I know of that would generally be called negligent homicide. Of course, I don't practice criminal law so I'm a bit rusty on this stuff. The way I learned it, recklessness and negligence were two different stops on the mens rea spectrum.

Anyway, that's all splitting hairs. This guy is clearly guilty, although I bet he never gets charged. The focus here will end up being on the civil case.
It does sound like negligent homicide, but I just learned that new phrase reckless homicide, which does seem to fit the case better. Let me quote:

"Reckless Homicide: The unlawful killing of a person with conscious indifference towards that person's life"

As compared to

"Negligent Homicide: Homicide resulting from the careless preformance of a legal or illegal act in which the danger of death is apparant; the killing of a person by criminal negligence"

I think that conscious indifference is a better way to describe the actions of those people then negligent homicide.

Sorry for asking again but... cuffing the legs? Anyone?

Sorry for asking again but... cuffing the legs? Anyone?

I don't know, but my first thought was 'why not cuff one of his hands to one of the security staff?'

It does sound like negligent homicide, but I just learned that new phrase reckless homicide, which does seem to fit the case better. Let me quote:

"Reckless Homicide: The unlawful killing of a person with conscious indifference towards that person's life"

As compared to

"Negligent Homicide: Homicide resulting from the careless preformance of a legal or illegal act in which the danger of death is apprant; the killing of a person by criminal negligence"

I think that conscious indifference is a better way to describe the actions of those people then negligent homicide.
Yea, this sounds more like a case of Reckless Homicide than Negligence. It would have been negligence if they cuffed him and left him there, but there was clearly an intention, if not to kill him, then to seriously hurt him. (What other reasonable reason would there be to hold him on blistering pavement?)

I don't know, but my first thought was 'why not cuff one of his hands to one of the security staff?'
why not take him inside?

why not take him inside?
Because if you let him up, he's strong enough to overpower 30 men and run away while having a cardiac arrest, of course...

It does sound like negligent homicide, but I just learned that new phrase reckless homicide, which does seem to fit the case better. Let me quote:

"Reckless Homicide: The unlawful killing of a person with conscious indifference towards that person's life"

As compared to

"Negligent Homicide: Homicide resulting from the careless preformance of a legal or illegal act in which the danger of death is apparant; the killing of a person by criminal negligence"

I think that conscious indifference is a better way to describe the actions of those people then negligent homicide.
Now reckless homicide, that I know of. That is actually what is referred to in some jurisdictions as manslaughter. I don't really think this is "reckless" of "conscious indifference" in a legal sense, though, because that would require proof that the person doing it knew that there was a serious danger of the guy dying. You might be able to prove that, but I have my doubts. Although actually denying the guy a rug to lie on might factor into that analysis.

I don't know, but my first thought was 'why not cuff one of his hands to one of the security staff?'

Or, indeed, something like that? But no, let the guy fry like a slab of meat on a sizzling asphalt, with the results being what they are. Fuck it, it's easier to believe in elves and gobling than in everything you see happening all around you nowadays.

Because if you let him up, he's strong enough to overpower 30 men and run away while having a cardiac arrest, of course...

You know, here's an idea: in order to increase the amount of medals won in the martial arts events in the Olympic games the USA should stop sending trained athletes and instead send random suspected petty criminals. They never seem to have trouble overpowering groups of four or five men and so a single opponent should be a doodle for them in comparison.

I don't see the problem.Look in the mirror. There's the problem.

You didn't even bother reading the article, but your indifference is nonetheless unconscionable.

Now reckless homicide, that I know of. That is actually what is referred to in some jurisdictions as manslaughter. I don't really think this is "reckless" of "conscious indifference" in a legal sense, though, because that would require proof that the person doing it knew that there was a serious danger of the guy dying. You might be able to prove that, but I have my doubts. Although actually denying the guy a rug to lie on might factor into that analysis.
The fact that they refused to call for help despite the fact he was clearly showing signs of serious distress and had his face shoved on burning hot asphalt for the last 10 minutes isn't conscious indifference?

Plus, they WERE probably people living there, and KNOWING what an asphalt in that temperature felt like, and was capable of doing...

Look in the mirror. There's the problem.

You didn't even bother reading the article, but your indifference is nonetheless unconscionable.


As an outsider I can't help but wonder if the people who are
disgusted and horrified by the attitudes of those who say it
was the man's fault.
Would be as disgusted and horrified IF it was being claimed that the
man had links with terrorist organisations.

Its heartening to think americans may have some sense of value to
human life, it just seems to most of the rest of the world
that that sense of value doesn't seem to extend to anyone
other than other americans (and infamously not even all of them)


1 man in a walmart in texas
tens of thousands of men women and children in Iraq
less than that but still rather substantial in Afghanistan
millions in vietnam
god knows how many less directly in haiti and nicaragua and cambodia
I could go on but I don't even know why I'm bothering to post

I will now make an even more conscious effort to never ever shop at Wal-Mart ever again.

Fucking bastards. :(

*moment of silence for the man killed by Wal-Mart's policies and retarded employees*

1.Who authorised them to handcuff anyone? Do they have a law enforcement license? If so, who was the officer in charge?

2.if this man was arrested as this is claimed, when and by whom was he read his rights?

3.If this is a case of shoplifting, why were the REAL police not called?

4.Under what rights do store employees have the right to detain without charge and without contacting the police?

5.As soon as medical help was requested, why was it not provided?

6."Grey fingertips" indicate cyanosis, meaning the person had stopped breathing. The person was left face down, and as a trained CPR operator, I can tell you right now that no one performs CPR on a persons back.

My call is manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Goddamn Receipt stealing goblins, they got me in the (mebbe) two minutes it took to reach the door.


So he ran (and lost his shirt . . . and looked like a total ass . . . oh yeah, and died) just to avoid spending a minute of his day? if that theory is true we may have found a Darwin winner.

Perhaps he was never given a receipt or lost it or dropped it. Perhaps he was in a hurry but they wanted to detain him when he coudlnt show it. After they tried to detain him he pushed them away feeling like he was being wronged and was too stubborn to deal with them calmly and just wanted to get the hell away. thats a perfectly plausible explanation.

Also at the very least they could have at least put him on the piece of carpet.

Anyone who thinks the way they treated this guy is okay is probably a conservative. Fits the M.O. anyway. Once again I feel I have to tell you conservatives. The world isn't so black and white. There are always other ways to look and deal with a situation.

As an outsider I can't help but wonder if the people who are disgusted and horrified by the attitudes of those who say it
was the man's fault.Would be as disgusted and horrified IF it was being claimed that the man had links with terrorist organisations.I could care less if allegations were made that he was secretly buggering his dachsunds while blackmailing the Aga Khan, what are you insinuating about my post?

Oh and I also don't shop at Walmart. I've gotten lots of people to stop shopping there too. *pats self on back*

The fact that they refused to call for help despite the fact he was clearly showing signs of serious distress and had his face shoved on burning hot asphalt for the last 10 minutes isn't conscious indifference?

Well, like I said, to be "conscious indifference", they would have to know that what they were doing was likely to kill the guy. If they just "should have known", then it would be negligence.

Actually, though, I just reread the article and this could go either way, as the article is a little short on facts. The part where someone says "he's not breathing" could very well be the smoking gun here.

I would love to be the lawyer representing this guy's family. Once the conscious indifference element comes into play, you've got gross negligence and punitive damages comes into play. Wal-Mart is going to pay through the nose for this one. Hopefully this will teach them a lesson.

EDIT: never mind, this is Texas. We have a cruel tort reform bill so Wal-Mart is actually going to get away relatively cheap in terms of punitive damages. Thank your legislators for that one, kids.

I could care less if allegations were made that he was secretly buggering his dachsunds while blackmailing the Aga Khan, what are you insinuating about my post?

Insinuating nothing.
I don't know you and for all I know you may be one of those
near mythical people, a decent, honourable american.

They do exist, I know one or two myself.
Your post wasnt picked specifically, just quoting one of many people
who reject the attitudes of the people who seem to think the treatment of the guy
was reasonable.

But if there was the same percentage breakdown in relation
to the inhuman treatment and murder of people of other nations
then the US would have a different government of neither republicans
nor democrats and would generally be considered as one of the
nearly civilized countries of the world rather than the barbarian,
torturing, murderous killers that is your nations current international
profile.


no offense intended

also do not mean to imply that you are an american
there would be a certain assumption that most ppl commenting on
this issue would be

and as I explained my comments are not about any individual post
but the general run of them
and it doesn seem unreasonable to suggest that the majority of people
posting comments either in favour of what seem to be unreasonable behaviour
or against , are probably citizens of the jewel in the crown of
empire building pseudo democratic states

Okay... as it happens, I'm Canadian, hope that's not an extra bit of salt in all this. I'm not too surprised by the reaction this seems to be garnering, even if it does seem like something out of a Rod Serling teleplay. The slide towards tacit acceptance of Authoritarianism continues unabated.

Now reckless homicide, that I know of. That is actually what is referred to in some jurisdictions as manslaughter. I don't really think this is "reckless" of "conscious indifference" in a legal sense, though, because that would require proof that the person doing it knew that there was a serious danger of the guy dying. You might be able to prove that, but I have my doubts. Although actually denying the guy a rug to lie on might factor into that analysis.
Well I cannot comment on the specific laws in Texas, I would be very surprised if proving that a person knew what they were doing was likely to result in injury or death would be required in order to establish legal culpability. Most laws that require some determinate of a person's intent actually require only that it be proved the person/s could be 'reasonably expected' to know, not that they actually did know.

Well I cannot comment on the specific laws in Texas, I would be very surprised if proving that a person knew what they were doing was likely to result in injury or death would be required in order to establish legal culpability. Most laws that require some determinate of a person's intent actually require only that it be proved the person/s could be 'reasonably expected' to know, not that they actually did know.
No, absolutely. But that is the difference (in criminal law) between negligence and recklessness, and in civil law between negligence and gross negligence. Of course, there is a bit of wiggle room and there are some presumptions that you are allowed to make. For example, driving your car 100 mph down a street or firing a gun into the air are presumed to be acts that anyone would know could kill someone. Pushing someone's face into a hot pavement is a little different. A lot of people wouldn't expect that. My gut feeling is that the guys who did this didn't know that there was a serious risk of killing this guy when they did that. However, the bit about not calling paramedics is probably dead on, and would cross over into recklessness/conscious indifference.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, if the guy was truly shoplifting, it's his own stupid fault. They tried to grab him, he freed himself from his shirt and ran, they pinned him on the ground and he started freaking out and claiming to be in pain. Now, in a normal situation, people that freak out may require some consideration, but there are two main reasons as to why this is an abnormal situation: one, it's his fault his shirt came off in the first place, causing him to be exposed directly to the heat; and two, more importantly, criminals freak out at their captors all the time. It's not unusual to see a criminal exaggerate mistreatment, especially in front of a crowd, so there was no real reason that a shoed Walmart employee should have known that any damage the hot pavement was causing the pinned shoplifter would be permanent, let alone fatal. They should not have had to pick him up and drag him inside at the risk of him breaking away again - the dumbass had his chance to come quietly. There are too many factors in this to truly call it anyone's fault but the thief.

No, absolutely. But that is the difference (in criminal law) between negligence and recklessness, and in civil law between negligence and gross negligence. Of course, there is a bit of wiggle room and there are some presumptions that you are allowed to make. For example, driving your car 100 mph down a street or firing a gun into the air are presumed to be acts that anyone would know could kill someone. Pushing someone's face into a hot pavement is a little different. A lot of people wouldn't expect that. My gut feeling is that the guys who did this didn't know that there was a serious risk of killing this guy when they did that. However, the bit about not calling paramedics is probably dead on, and would cross over into recklessness/conscious indifference.
Pushing someone into hot pavement most likely wouldn't kill them, though it might force them into heatstroke or something (and burn them). However, I was more focusing on the refusal to call the paramedics, which I think is the oddest thing about all of this. Why refuse to call the paramedics? They're just as good as the police. And where are the police? The paramedics took 2 minutes to get there after they were called. If you assume that the call to the police went out right away, they should have surely gotten there before the paramedics arrived, some 15 minutes later. Which raises the question of when the police were called. If later (or at all), one could make the argument that they had no idea that this guy was actually a shoplifter (you're supposed to hand them over to the police as soon as possible, due to false imprisonment laws) and they were merely going on a fishing expedition.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, if the guy was truly shoplifting, it's his own stupid fault. They tried to grab him, he freed himself from his shirt and ran, they pinned him on the ground and he started freaking out and claiming to be in pain. Now, in a normal situation, people that freak out may require some consideration, but there are two main reasons as to why this is an abnormal situation: one, it's his fault his shirt came off in the first place, causing him to be exposed directly to the heat; and two, more importantly, criminals freak out at their captors all the time. It's not unusual to see a criminal exaggerate mistreatment, especially in front of a crowd, so there was no real reason that a shoed Walmart employee should have known that any damage the hot pavement was causing the pinned shoplifter would be permanent, let alone fatal. They should not have had to pick him up and drag him inside at the risk of him breaking away again - the dumbass had his chance to come quietly. There are too many factors in this to truly call it anyone's fault but the thief.

If you've ever been in Texas in August, you know what the asphalt feels like. The heat hits you in the face standing up. They may not have known they were going to kill him, but they knew that he was in pain and they should have known that they were scarriing him. It's not worth it over someone that you THINK may have stole 30 bucks worth of crap.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, if the guy was truly shoplifting, it's his own stupid fault. They tried to grab him, he freed himself from his shirt and ran, they pinned him on the ground and he started freaking out and claiming to be in pain. Now, in a normal situation, people that freak out may require some consideration, but there are two main reasons as to why this is an abnormal situation: one, it's his fault his shirt came off in the first place, causing him to be exposed directly to the heat; and two, more importantly, criminals freak out at their captors all the time. It's not unusual to see a criminal exaggerate mistreatment, especially in front of a crowd, so there was no real reason that a shoed Walmart employee should have known that any damage the hot pavement was causing the pinned shoplifter would be permanent, let alone fatal. They should not have had to pick him up and drag him inside at the risk of him breaking away again - the dumbass had his chance to come quietly. There are too many factors in this to truly call it anyone's fault but the thief.

Perhaps he was never given a receipt or lost it or dropped it. Perhaps he was in a hurry but they wanted to detain him when he coudlnt show it. After they tried to detain him he pushed them away feeling like he was being wronged and was too stubborn to deal with them calmly and just wanted to get the hell away. thats a perfectly plausible explanation.

Also at the very least they could have at least put him on the piece of carpet.

Again, there is more than one way to look at things.

Pushing someone into hot pavement most likely wouldn't kill them, though it might force them into heatstroke or something (and burn them). However, I was more focusing on the refusal to call the paramedics, which I think is the oddest thing about all of this. Why refuse to call the paramedics? They're just as good as the police. And where are the police? The paramedics took 2 minutes to get there after they were called. If you assume that the call to the police went out right away, they should have surely gotten there before the paramedics arrived, some 15 minutes later. Which raises the question of when the police were called. If later (or at all), one could make the argument that they had no idea that this guy was actually a shoplifter (you're supposed to hand them over to the police as soon as possible, due to false imprisonment laws) and they were merely going on a fishing expedition.
Yeah, all of this makes me wonder what kind of idiots and nazis Wal-mart is hiring to do its head busting.

Yeah, all of this makes me wonder what kind of idiots and nazis Wal-mart is hiring to do its head busting.
More to the matter, if this was just a fishing expedition, then they didn't have any reason at all (or else the cops would have been called from the start) to even begin to arrest him.



This isn't defendable at all.

I'd freak out too if I was being detained for something I never did just because I lost my reciept.

Someone killed at Wal Mart?

What's this world coming to? :confused:

If you've ever been in Texas in August, you know what the asphalt feels like. The heat hits you in the face standing up. They may not have known they were going to kill him, but they knew that he was in pain and they should have known that they were scarriing him. It's not worth it over someone that you THINK may have stole 30 bucks worth of crap.

No, it's not worth an idiot of a criminal's comfort to make sure he's okay after he already broke free of you once. And though I've never been to Texas, I've felt hot asphalt in windless hundred-degree weather, so I can understand what it felt like, but I would not think it would give you anymore than first or minor second degree chest burns, and I definitely wouldn't think it would kill you.

Someone killed at Wal Mart?

What's this world coming to? :confused:

Well they did it for a price much lower than the competition.

No, absolutely. But that is the difference (in criminal law) between negligence and recklessness, and in civil law between negligence and gross negligence. Of course, there is a bit of wiggle room and there are some presumptions that you are allowed to make. For example, driving your car 100 mph down a street or firing a gun into the air are presumed to be acts that anyone would know could kill someone. Pushing someone's face into a hot pavement is a little different. A lot of people wouldn't expect that. My gut feeling is that the guys who did this didn't know that there was a serious risk of killing this guy when they did that. However, the bit about not calling paramedics is probably dead on, and would cross over into recklessness/conscious indifference.
Well once again, disclaimer about my having any actual knowledge about the law in Texas, however would not the actual evidence available to the persons at the time be relevent? For instance that it would be not just an issue of whether they should or could have assumed that their actions were generally dangerous, but rather whether they could have been expected to realise in the actual context that they were endangering this person.

Perhaps he was never given a receipt or lost it or dropped it. Perhaps he was in a hurry but they wanted to detain him when he coudlnt show it. After they tried to detain him he pushed them away feeling like he was being wronged and was too stubborn to deal with them calmly and just wanted to get the hell away. thats a perfectly plausible explanation.

Also at the very least they could have at least put him on the piece of carpet.

Again, there is more than one way to look at things.

Okay, first of all, don't be so condescending, because I can guarantee that you have no right to be. I am perfectly aware that there are multiple ways to look at a situation, so you don't need to tell me that. Second of all, to assume that he would wrestle violently enough with the employees to lose his shirt, and then run - leaving his shirt behind although he did nothing wrong - is naïve and laughable. That's not a plausible explanation at all.

Also, while they could have, out of the goodness of their hearts, moved him onto the carpet, they were by no means obligated to, so it's still not murder and it's still not their fault.

Well they did it for a price much lower than the competition.

Yea but I mean where is this leading? I mean it looks good that they offer murder at cut rate prices, but where does this leave all those mom and pop hit men? The burly Italian guy named Vinny just can't compete against the cold corporate prices of Wal-Mart. It's sad really.

Well once again, disclaimer about my having any actual knowledge about the law in Texas, however would not the actual evidence available to the persons at the time be relevent? For instance that it would be not just an issue of whether they should or could have assumed that their actions were generally dangerous, but rather whether they could have been expected to realise in the actual context that they were endangering this person.
Well sure. That would all enter into the evidence. Like I said, I'm just going with my gut feeling here that these guys were incompetent and really didn't know that putting the guys face to the concrete was going to kill him. Of course, that's for a jury to decide, but then juries in Texas are notoriously heartless and pro-law enforcement. When they refused to call the paramedics, they probably crossed the line. But, on the other hand, in a criminal trial you would have to prove that they knew that the guy was in distress in time enough to save him. It's a very cruel analysis, to be sure, but criminal law often is. That's why I work on the civil side.

Okay, first of all, don't be so condescending, because I can guarantee that you have no right to be. I am perfectly aware that there are multiple ways to look at a situation, so you don't need to tell me that. Second of all, to assume that he would wrestle violently enough with the employees to lose his shirt, and then run - leaving his shirt behind although he did nothing wrong - is naïve and laughable. That's not a plausible explanation at all.

Also, while they could have, out of the goodness of their hearts, moved him onto the carpet, they were by no means obligated to, so it's still not murder and it's still not their fault.
Actually, they were obligated to do so. No, they didn't commit murder, as there was no malice, however there is clear negligence, and possibly even recklessness. The employees showed a conscious disregard for this man's heath, irregardless of his alledged status as a criminal (may I remind you that there is no proof that he committed a crime, and is thus entitled to all rights that a normal citizen has until his case can be heard in front of a judge and a jury), and that disregard eventually lead to his death. Reckless homocide, in a nutshell.

Okay, first of all, don't be so condescending, because I can guarantee that you have no right to be. I am perfectly aware that there are multiple ways to look at a situation, so you don't need to tell me that. Second of all, to assume that he would wrestle violently enough with the employees to lose his shirt, and then run - leaving his shirt behind although he did nothing wrong - is naïve and laughable. That's not a plausible explanation at all.


Then you have no idea what it's like in the mind of a stubborn person. I certainly would lose my shirt to prove a point that I don't have to stop for some rent-a-cops when I didn't do anything wrong. if that is indeed the case with this guy. From looking at what you wrote , it seemed as if you were calling him a criminal even though there is no proof offered that he did IN FACT do anything wrong. SO I would say that you are taking a very narrow view of what has been shown and accepting that as the only plausible view despite there being many things that could have been going on in this guys mind or in the situation in general. The ones who detained the guy already proved themselves to be liars by saying they tried to administer CPR, they proved themselves to be sadistic assholes by not allowing the guy to be put on a piece of carpet. So why do you put your trust in lying assholes first? You are showing absolutely no compassion. Even if he was in fact stealing something he didn't deserve to die.

Okay, first of all, don't be so condescending, because I can guarantee that you have no right to be. I am perfectly aware that there are multiple ways to look at a situation, so you don't need to tell me that. Second of all, to assume that he would wrestle violently enough with the employees to lose his shirt, and then run - leaving his shirt behind although he did nothing wrong - is naïve and laughable. That's not a plausible explanation at all.

Also, while they could have, out of the goodness of their hearts, moved him onto the carpet, they were by no means obligated to, so it's still not murder and it's still not their fault.

Um..if someone tries to apprehend me and tries to handcuff me without having a good explaination (IE, he/she is a cop), I will struggle. I will run. I don't care if I have a receipt and am innocent. My instinct will tell me to get my behind out of the area because I am not safe.

They didn't have to move him to carpet, yes, they were not obliged to pamper him. But that's not the main issue here; what gives them the right to restrain someone on suspicions? What sort of airheaded manager neglected to inform his/her employees that getting into a physical confrontation over an alleged shoplifting of items valued under $100 (yeah, their prices are low)? If the man is handcuffed and shirtless, it's not likely he's going to get far and blend in with the crowd, should he get away while you are taking him out of the blistering sun.

Actually, they were obligated to do so. No, they didn't commit murder, as there was no malice, however there is clear negligence, and possibly even recklessness. The employees showed a conscious disregard for this man's heath, irregardless of his alledged status as a criminal (may I remind you that there is no proof that he committed a crime, and is thus entitled to all rights that a normal citizen has until his case can be heard in front of a judge and a jury), and that disregard eventually lead to his death. Reckless homocide, in a nutshell.

No, they would have been obligated to do so had he come willingly. He resisted, they used all means necessary to capture and detain the man. They did absolutely nothing wrong.

Um..if someone tries to apprehend me and tries to handcuff me without having a good explaination (IE, he/she is a cop), I will struggle. I will run. I don't care if I have a receipt and am innocent. My instinct will tell me to get my behind out of the area because I am not safe.

They didn't have to move him to carpet, yes, they were not obliged to pamper him. But that's not the main issue here; what gives them the right to restrain someone on suspicions? What sort of airheaded manager neglected to inform his/her employees that getting into a physical confrontation over an alleged shoplifting of items valued under $100 (yeah, their prices are low)? If the man is handcuffed and shirtless, it's not likely he's going to get far and blend in with the crowd, should he get away while you are taking him out of the blistering sun.
Not only this, he's also surrounded by a crowd of 30 some people, and is in serious distress.

No, they would have been obligated to do so had he come willingly. He resisted, they used all means necessary to capture and detain the man. They did absolutely nothing wrong.
Wrong. You are not allowed to use deadly force to defend property. Certainly not in this case. At the very least they applied excessive force. Neither of the two actions are legal.

Yea but I mean where is this leading? I mean it looks good that they offer murder at cut rate prices, but where does this leave all those mom and pop hit men? The burly Italian guy named Vinny just can't compete against the cold corporate prices of Wal-Mart. It's sad really.


That's why I don't shoplift there. :p

Then you have no idea what it's like in the mind of a stubborn person. I certainly would lose my shirt to prove a point that I don't have to stop for some rent-a-cops when I didn't do anything wrong. if that is indeed the case with this guy. From looking at what you wrote , it seemed as if you were calling him a criminal even though there is no proof offered that he did IN FACT do anything wrong. SO I would say that you are taking a very narrow view of what has been shown and accepting that as the only plausible view despite there being many things that could have been going on in this guys mind or in the situation in general. The ones who detained the guy already proved themselves to be liars by saying they tried to administer CPR, they proved themselves to be sadistic assholes by not allowing the guy to be put on a piece of carpet. So why do you put your trust in lying assholes first? You are showing absolutely no compassion. Even if he was in fact stealing something he didn't deserve to die.

Okay, I'm assuming he did shoplift. If not, my stance on this might be different, but I assume he did, because he ran in the manner that he did. And I know many stubborn people, including myself, and no stubborn person would act like that. If a stubborn person had his shirt pulled off by rent-a-cops he would not continue to run, he would be pissed and raise hell. A truly stubborn person would not put up with unjustly losing a shirt to a rent-a-cop. And no, I have no compassion for people that stupid, to be honest.

You (command) devour shit? That's a delightful name...


Oh. You're saying eat shit. You do know that's not allowed here, right?

Okay, first of all, don't be so condescending, because I can guarantee that you have no right to be. I am perfectly aware that there are multiple ways to look at a situation, so you don't need to tell me that. Second of all, to assume that he would wrestle violently enough with the employees to lose his shirt, and then run - leaving his shirt behind although he did nothing wrong - is naïve and laughable. That's not a plausible explanation at all.

Also, while they could have, out of the goodness of their hearts, moved him onto the carpet, they were by no means obligated to, so it's still not murder and it's still not their fault.
I'm willing to assume the guy was stealing, but they don't have the authority or the legal right to brutalize him for doing that. They aren't the police and they weren't making a lawful arrest.

Wrong. You are not allowed to use deadly force to defend property. Certainly not in this case. At the very least they applied excessive force. Neither of the two actions are legal.

But that's irrelevant, because deadly force was not the intent. They used for necessary to detain, not deadly force. Also, the force was not excessive because the criminal being detained was violent (he struggled hard enough to lose his shirt) and had attempted to flee once already. Besides, I'm not sure how correct it is to say that you may not use deadly force to defend property. If a thief invades your home and tries to take your things, be he armed or not, you can shoot his ass to stop him. If he dies, you do not go to jail.

Should I quote Ron White? No, maybe later.

Okay, I'm assuming he did shoplift. If not, my stance on this might be different, but I assume he did, because he ran in the manner that he did. And I know many stubborn people, including myself, and no stubborn person would act like that. If a stubborn person had his shirt pulled off by rent-a-cops he would not continue to run, he would be pissed and raise hell. A truly stubborn person would not put up with unjustly losing a shirt to a rent-a-cop. And no, I have no compassion for people that stupid, to be honest.


Now you are saying that all stubborn people would act the same way in the same situation. How is that seeing that there are many ways to look at things? You are assuming quite a bit with this whole thing. Are you a conservative? Now I'm assuming - shame on me.

I'm willing to assume the guy was stealing, but they don't have the authority or the legal right to brutalize him for doing that. They aren't the police and they weren't making a lawful arrest.

They didn't exactly brutalize him - from what I understand, they didn't do anymore than pin him to the ground, which was perfectly acceptable when the criminal tries to flee.

Also, while they could have, out of the goodness of their hearts, moved him onto the carpet, they were by no means obligated to, so it's still not murder and it's still not their fault.
You obviously don't understand the legal term "fault." Even without the damning comments from the EMS, the bystanders, and the guy reporting everything to the news, the ringleader would at LEAST be convicted of depraved indifference, with those comments he can end up in jail for a good many years on anything up to manslaughter, maybe 2nd degree murder, and those employees with him can be convicted of the same or similar charges or as accomplices. There was no legal reason to refuse paramedics, moving the man, or ignoring his pleas, nor was there any to hold him down outside on the ground without a shirt on for alledgedly stealing diapers and a BB gun with BBs. Their manager is at least fired and all of them will be lucky if they arn't making license plates for a good many years


They didn't exactly brutalize him - from what I understand, they didn't do anymore than pin him to the ground, which was perfectly acceptable when the criminal tries to flee.
Four to five people holding him down? Who was this guy? Mike Tyson? With 5 people and him in handcuffs, they couldn't have restrained him some other way?

They didn't exactly brutalize him - from what I understand, they didn't do anymore than pin him to the ground, which was perfectly acceptable when the criminal tries to flee.

If he is begging to be let up when the ground is scorching him and saying he can't breathe?

But that's irrelevant, because deadly force was not the intent. They used for necessary to detain, not deadly force. Also, the force was not excessive because the criminal being detained was violent (he struggled hard enough to lose his shirt) and had attempted to flee once already. Besides, I'm not sure how correct it is to say that you may not use deadly force to defend property. If a thief invades your home and tries to take your things, be he armed or not, you can shoot his ass to stop him. If he dies, you do not go to jail.

Should I quote Ron White? No, maybe later.
No, as I said earlier, you can only use deadly force to defend yourself, not property. Of course, this is where the line gets a bit silly (who knows), but generally it is acknowledged that deadly force can't be used to defend property. Once he was handcuffed, face down on the ground, on steaming hot asphalt that can scar badly (I've done it before and I live in the north) and in serious distress, refusing to call an ambulence or even moving him stands as callous indifference to a persons health. It doesn't matter if he commited a crime or not, he is still entitled to rights. Those rights include, if suspected of arrest, to be treated civily. You might have a point if these were professional cops, but they weren't (nor would have cops done anything like this), and it's in serious doubt how seriously they took his actions (the police question, for example). If the police had done this, it would most likely be excessive force anyway.

Now you are saying that all stubborn people would act the same way in the same situation. How is that seeing that there are many ways to look at things? You are assuming quite a bit with this whole thing. Are you a conservative? Now I'm assuming - shame on me.

No, I'm not assuming that much at all, I'm just looking at this logically. It's illogical to think that an innocent person would wrestle free of rent-a-cops, lose his shirt to them, and then run, losing his groceries and a perfectly good shirt for something he didn't do. Nobody does that - unless they are mentally ill, which I don't think the man's record would suggest. And no, I am not conservative or liberal, I vary from issue to issue, and I can't stand stupid people.

They didn't exactly brutalize him - from what I understand, they didn't do anymore than pin him to the ground, which was perfectly acceptable when the criminal tries to flee.
That is. Keeping him there for 9ish minutes while he is in serious distress isn't. Twidding your thumbs and refusing to move him to a slightly safe place while this person DIES isn't acceptable. If the police did this, as I said, it would most certainly be considered excessive force, and would most likely result in criminal action against them. As will this.

Why is everyone crying boo hoo for the creep? He was STEALING!! He probably had an undiagnosed health problem which led to his demise. That wasnt murder!!! HOw stupid!! He wouldnt have been running if he didnt already know he had stolen those items! Master carpenter? He had money or maybe he was a drunk or a drug bum! I refuse to believe we should allow creeps to steal like this and then feel sorry for them when something goes wrong! Maybe they got a little bit too much adrenaline and got too forceful but the creep took that risk! Diapers and a beebee gun are not life saving essentials. He was probably drunk! If they charge them with any thing (which I hope they dont ) it should be a slap on the wrist!! OH..boohoo..the criminal died!!

That's great.

Because of some idiots, there's another child who's going to grow asking where daddy is.

I say have the employees arrested on manslaughter charges or at least have their wages garnished and put towards taking of the victim's son.

My God, what the hell is going on?

Sam must be rolling in his grave.

No, as I said earlier, you can only use deadly force to defend yourself, not property. Of course, this is where the line gets a bit silly (who knows), but generally it is acknowledged that deadly force can't be used to defend property. Once he was handcuffed, face down on the ground, on steaming hot asphalt that can scar badly (I've done it before and I live in the north) and in serious distress, refusing to call an ambulence or even moving him stands as callous indifference to a persons health. It doesn't matter if he commited a crime or not, he is still entitled to rights. Those rights include, if suspected of arrest, to be treated civily. You might have a point if these were professional cops, but they weren't (nor would have cops done anything like this), and it's in serious doubt how seriously they took his actions (the police question, for example). If the police had done this, it would most likely be excessive force anyway.

And I'll say it again, his becoming scarred for trying to rob the store was not a concern of the employees holding him - his life was, but they most likely didn't think he would die from being pinned to hot pavement, and as for the serious distress, that's easy to fake, and criminals do so all the time, especially in front of crowds. For all the employees knew, he was bitching for show. And their being cops or not is irrelevant as to whether or not detaining him by pinning him to hot pavement was just. In fact, if they would have been real cops, they probably would have been able to drag him inside without worrying about his escape, so the fact that they were not appropriately trained to move hostile criminals should give them even more slack in the situation.

Read this Shoplifting False Arrest (http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting3.htm)

After reading that I do not have a definite opinion on the matter.

OH please.... the creep decided to steal and I bet 10 to 1 he was on alcohol or some other drug! I hope they get off! He took the risk when he decided to steal. I have pity for someone who steals to feed their family...and then some compassion should be shown but being an ignorant stupid horse ass..that is another thing. He didnt need to steal!!! Another thing the media tends to exaggerate the facts to sensationalize things. I doubt they were as brutal as they were portrayed. That creep was a piece of shit! He took his chances!

For the last time, people, quit mentioning that he was begging to be let up and acted like he was in intense pain. It's a moot point, because criminals do similar things all the time, and nothing should have indicated to an untrained employee that this situation was any more real than your average instance of a criminal raising hell for the audience.

Why is everyone crying boo hoo for the creep? He was STEALING!! He probably had an undiagnosed health problem which led to his demise. That wasnt murder!!! HOw stupid!! He wouldnt have been running if he didnt already know he had stolen those items! Master carpenter? He had money or maybe he was a drunk or a drug bum! I refuse to believe we should allow creeps to steal like this and then feel sorry for them when something goes wrong! Maybe they got a little bit too much adrenaline and got too forceful but the creep took that risk! Diapers and a beebee gun are not life saving essentials. He was probably drunk! If they charge them with any thing (which I hope they dont ) it should be a slap on the wrist!! OH..boohoo..the criminal died!!

:rolleyes:

For the last time, people, quit mentioning that he was begging to be let up and acted like he was in intense pain. It's a moot point, because criminals do similar things all the time, and nothing should have indicated to an untrained employee that this situation was any more real than your average instance of a criminal raising hell for the audience.
Where do you live? Does it get above 80 degrees? Lay down on the road in the middle of a hot day with your clothes on.

For the last time, people, quit mentioning that he was begging to be let up and acted like he was in intense pain. It's a moot point, because criminals do similar things all the time, and nothing should have indicated to an untrained employee that this situation was any more real than your average instance of a criminal raising hell for the audience.

You make an assumption everybody knows they do that. I worked in two retail stores and was never told anything about that.

Did these employees know that?

The fact he was handcuffed with hands behind his back pretty well says he was controllable.

Where do you live? Does it get above 80 degrees? Lay down on the road in the middle of a hot day with your clothes on.

I have, and I sure as hell wouldn't think ten minutes of it would kill me. Then again, I'm pretty healthy, and I don't know what health problems this guy had - nor did the employees.

YOu know what if he hadnt of run away from the security and not stolen in the first place ...then he wouldnt have ended up on the pavement. Responsiblity for your own actions, and dont blame others for your mistakes.

I have, and I sure as hell wouldn't think ten minutes of it would kill me. Then again, I'm pretty healthy, and I don't know what health problems this guy had - nor did the employees.
Oh, get someone to shove a knee in your back, and force your head down on the ground. Add about 800 pounds of weight on top of you. Sit there for...10 minutes. No clothes, bare flesh against hot asphalt.

YOu know what if he hadnt of run away from the security and not stolen in the first place ...then he wouldnt have ended up on the pavement. Responsiblity for your own actions, and dont blame others for your mistakes.
You don't have to stop for security. They aren't proper cops. They have no legal right to arrest you.

Besides, I do admit that they had some ability to detain him. What they did was far out of line and into the area of homicide.

YOu know what if he hadnt of run away from the security and not stolen in the first place ...then he wouldnt have ended up on the pavement. Responsiblity for your own actions, and dont blame others for your mistakes.

Wow!

I heard that type of argument before.

"Hey if she wasn't wearing those cloths then she wouldn't have gotten raped."

Isn't that called blaming the victim?

I have, and I sure as hell wouldn't think ten minutes of it would kill me. Then again, I'm pretty healthy, and I don't know what health problems this guy had - nor did the employees.
He obviously had some sort of heart problem, but that is irrelevant. He was restrained by 5 people and in handcuffs, unless he was going to turn into the incredible hulk, which I'm sure he would have done before he started claiming chest problems and he would have then proceeded to bash in some skulls, he was well enough subdued to pick up and put somewhere else until the cops came, which shouldn't have been long assuming they called them when they expected they were going to detain a criminal.

PS. I have yet to see any confirmed report he was stealing, all that exists is the alledged statement of the same people who aggressively and brutally subdued him

No, it's not worth an idiot of a criminal's comfort to make sure he's okay after he already broke free of you once. And though I've never been to Texas, I've felt hot asphalt in windless hundred-degree weather, so I can understand what it felt like, but I would not think it would give you anymore than first or minor second degree chest burns, and I definitely wouldn't think it would kill you.
The point you seem determined to ignore is that onlookers formed an opinion that the person restrained was in danger. No one is requiring that these people had to know prior to restraining him the possible consequences of the restraint employed, the fact is once an effect of an action manifests itself this effect should be given reasonable considerable. The fact is onlookers further away from the individual than those restraining him were able to determine that there was a high likliehood this person was in danger. There is no evidence that these onlookers had any specialised knowledge about asphalt. Also it is claimed that the Walmart employees performed CPR. That would be a negligent act itself unless one has a justified reason for believing they actually know how to do CPR. How would one know they can perform CPR without causing more harm than good? By being trained in CPR. I've been to a CPR training course. Equally as important as the technique itself are the indicators for employing the technique. This suggests to me that the employees if they had any business attempting CPR (and assuming they are not lying about that due to having formed an opinion that in their own minds their behaviour does not stand up to scrutiny), also have no business claiming complete inability to recognise the evident symptoms of extreme physical distress. CPR is worthless if you dont know when to use it, and if you know when to use it, then presumably you know when someone is in the kind of danger that might require CPR, such as was evidently the case here.

Onlookers formed an opinion, based on the same evidence available to the restrainers, that the man was in danger. I know people sometimes joke about the intelligence of Walmart employees, but I find it hard to believe that what was apparent to onlookers was not apparent to persons who considered themselves competent to attempt CPR.

You make an assumption everybody knows they do that. I worked in two retail stores and was never told anything about that.

Did these employees know that?

The fact he was handcuffed with hands behind his back pretty well says he was controllable.

As long as he was pinned to the ground in handcuffs, yeah, he was controllable. What the hell does that have to do with letting him move? Someone walking with handcuffs behind their back can still run. As for your suggestion that not everyone knows criminals overact, I was never aware that people needed to be informed of that. Anyone that has turned their TV on once, knows a cop, or has any common sense can know or guess that. Perhaps the one guy that denied him the rug was the only one that knew that, however, in which case it still wasn't his fault, he was just judging based on what experience he had regarding criminals acting as if in pain.

As long as he was pinned to the ground in handcuffs, yeah, he was controllable. What the hell does that have to do with letting him move? Someone walking with handcuffs behind their back can still run. As for your suggestion that not everyone knows criminals overact, I was never aware that people needed to be informed of that. Anyone that has turned their TV on once, knows a cop, or has any common sense can know or guess that. Perhaps the one guy that denied him the rug was the only one that knew that, however, in which case it still wasn't his fault, he was just judging based on what experience he had regarding criminals acting as if in pain.
Not when you're surrounded by 35 people. He could have been quite safely moved. The walmart employees consciously ignored his safety, and that lead to his death. That is a crime. Being accused of shoplifting isn't. If anyone is a criminal here, those walmart employees are.

Well, I must withdraw from this contest of wills based on the fact everyone has a set opinion and I am at the point to break the rules in the face of other people's ludicrous opinions. Some one ring the bell and win me a tiger.

You can keep it if you point out where it was confirmed he was actually stealing.

The point you seem determined to ignore is that onlookers formed an opinion that the person restrained was in danger. No one is requiring that these people had to know prior to restraining him the possible consequences of the restraint employed, the fact is once an effect of an action manifests itself that this effect be given reasonable considerable. The fact is onlookers further away from the individual than those restraining him were able to determine that there was a high likliehood this person was in danger. There is no evidence that these people had any specialised knowledge about asphalt.

What kind of training gave the onlookers the ability to tell whether or not a criminal was faking it or seriously in pain? Were they all former CIA agents?
Or perhaps they were all brilliant thinkers and all of the employees were mentally retarded. Where's the evidence to suggest that the onlookers who deemed the man endangered had specialized knowledge about asphalt, or, better yet, any more knowledge than the employees on the matter, whatsoever?

Alteranatively it is claimed that the Walmart employees performed CPR. That would be a negligent act itself unless one has a justified reason for believing they might actually know how to do CPR. How would one know that? By being trained. I've been to a CPR training course. Equally as important as the technique itself and the indicators for the technique. This suggests to me that the employees if they had any business attempting CPR (and assuming they are not lying about that due to having formed an opinion that in their own minds their behaviour does not stand up to scrutiny), also have no business claiming complete inability to recognise the evident symptoms of extreme physical distress. CPR is worthless if you dont know when to use it, and if you know when to use it, then presumably you know when someone is in the kind of danger that might require CPR.

This entire rant is bullshit. I am certified to give CPR, I have a little card in my wallet that says I am licensed to do so, and I can tell you from experience that any dumbass who has seen an episode of ER could figure it out enough to try it. The only thing they might do wrong is press too hard and break a rib or forget to tilt the head back, neither of which are more fatal than just letting him sit there. Besides, I believe that it was said that they lied about that to cover their asses at first, and I don't blame them. They may have thought he was fucking with them and let him sit there instead of acting, which I would say is perfectly reasonable, given the nature of hostile criminals - and this guy was hostile, as he used force to attempt to flee the scene.

Onlookers formed an opinion, based on the same evidence available to the restrainers, that the man was in danger. I know people sometimes joke about the intelligence of Walmart employees, but I find it hard to believe that what was apparent to onlookers was not apparent to persons who considered themselves competent to attempt CPR.

Neither group had formal training that would allow them to make an educated decision as to whether or not the man was truly in danger, so it doesn't matter who was correct, as they were simply guessing anyway.

Perhaps the one guy that denied him the rug was the only one that knew that, however, in which case it still wasn't his fault, he was just judging based on what experience he had regarding criminals acting as if in pain.
And his judgement proved wrong. And a man died because of his self-assured wrongness. And you fail to see that this employee completely and utterly overstepped his extremely limited authority? And his fellows are no less culpable.

This mealy-mouthed support of authoritarian structures and an over-weaning reliance on pre-packaged video notions of who, what, and how a criminal is supposed to look, sound, or react under duress is totally sickening and dispiriting.

You Americans really do deserve to live in a Police State. You know that, don't you?

Not when you're surrounded by 35 people. He could have been quite safely moved. The walmart employees consciously ignored his safety, and that lead to his death. That is a crime. Being accused of shoplifting isn't. If anyone is a criminal here, those walmart employees are.

Gee, do you really think a circle of bystanders would follow them as they walked the guy to the store as many would suggest? Or would they be lazy and indifferent and head on over to their cars? Would the guy have at least one opening to run through, or would he have been completely closed off from any chance of escape when he reached the door? Come on now, use common sense.

Gee, do you really think a circle of bystanders would follow them as they walked the guy to the store as many would suggest? Or would they be lazy and indifferent and head on over to their cars? Would the guy have at least one opening to run through, or would he have been completely closed off from any chance of escape when he reached the door? Come on now, use common sense.
Oh yes, because it's so easy to run away with five people holding on to you, handcuffed. You come on now, use some common sense. The police seem to do it fine with one person, maybe two, tops.

And his judgement proved wrong. And a man died because of his self-assured wrongness. And you fail to see that this employee completely and utterly overstepped his extremely limited authority? And his fellows are no less culpable.

I said that strictly assuming that everyone else present was an idiot, as the person I quoted seemed to suggest. That probably wasn't the case.

This mealy-mouthed support of authoritarian structures and an over-weaning reliance on pre-packaged video notions of who, what, and how a criminal is supposed to look, sound, or react under duress is totally sickening and dispiriting.

You Americans really do deserve to live in a Police State. You know that, don't you?

You're right, Dobbsworld, much less sickening and dispiriting is mealy-mouthed support of criminals over cops, because everyone knows that criminals are in the right 95% of the time. :rolleyes:

Wow!

I heard that type of argument before.

"Hey if she wasn't wearing those cloths then she wouldn't have gotten raped."

Isn't that called blaming the victim?


NO because a rape victim doesnt deserve to be attacked regardless of what she wears...this guy ran out with stolen goods..what do we want the store to do say thank you and would you like some fries with that? They didnt mean to kill him, (( they didnt this was an unfortunate accident and regardless of who you support he must share in some of the culpability in this for starting the whole mess)) THEY DID NOT INTEND TO KILL HIM...does anybody not see that....and if that man cared anything about his kid he would not have been stealing in the first place. OH and to whoever said Americans deserve to live in a police state.... that was pretty rude considering you dont live here and dont know what goes on. Everybody is reacting to media sensationlism as well. HOw the hell does anyone know how long he was there? Did someone break out a timer? I bet ..it wasnt that long!!

As long as he was pinned to the ground in handcuffs, yeah, he was controllable. What the hell does that have to do with letting him move? Someone walking with handcuffs behind their back can still run.
So what? He could have run with handcuffs on, and even given the minimal chance he actually might have gotten away making a run for it in handcuffs with 30 odd people surrounding him, if the police had been called as they should have been, and even if not, what do you believe are the chances that a man running about the place in handcuffs will not be promptly detained by some law enforcement offical? What chances are there of this guy actually 'getting away' in the sense of making it somewhere safe and enlisting someone's assistance in removing the handcuffs? My guess would be somewhat less than the chance of a restrained person suffering from say heart seizure, even without the hot asphalt etc...

Assuming he did get away, was able to make it somewhere safe without being detained by the first police man who happened across the running handcuffed person, and assuming he was able to enlist help in removing the handcuffs, there is still the video tape in the possesion of Walmart. So the chances of doing something to ensure the man's safety actually resulting in a worst case scenario of someone not being apprehended and punished for stealing a few dollars worth of goods was too slim to even be a serious consideration. Compare that with the odds of an average person of his age having a heart seizure or some similar event, and it's pretty darn obvious that not only was the risk of him escaping in any permenent sense smaller than he risk that he actually was in serious physical distress (even to the point of life-threatening), but also the worst case scenario consequences of him escaping had it actually occured were indescribably less than the worst case scenario consequences of continuing to restrain in such a manner someone who shows evidence of extreme physical stress.

I said that strictly assuming that everyone else present was an idiot, as the person I quoted seemed to suggest. That probably wasn't the case.



You're right, Dobbsworld, much less sickening and dispiriting is mealy-mouthed support of criminals over cops, because everyone knows that criminals are in the right 95% of the time. :rolleyes:
No cops involved here. Real cops wouldn't have handled it this way. Real cops let people go when people's lives are in danger. That's why criminals have high speed chases, you know.

By the way, you declined stercum wrong, and even if it was in the second declension, it would be stercos.

Oh yes, because it's so easy to run away with five people holding on to you, handcuffed. You come on now, use some common sense. The police seem to do it fine with one person, maybe two, tops.

Okay, first of all, you can't walk a guy with five people holding him well, especially with his shirt off. You've got one or two with half-ass, civilian grips on his bare chest while moving. He could easily slip out and run for it. Police do it fine with "one person, maybe two, tops," because they are trained to do that. Last I checked, Walmart employees aren't. Use some common sense.

As long as he was pinned to the ground in handcuffs, yeah, he was controllable. What the hell does that have to do with letting him move? Someone walking with handcuffs behind their back can still run.


So what if he does? A guy running down the street with handcuffs on tends to get noticed.

As for your suggestion that not everyone knows criminals overact, I was never aware that people needed to be informed of that.

Actually you are wrong. I worked at Sears and we had shoplifters. The majority didn't make a rucus.


Anyone that has turned their TV on once, knows a cop, or has any common sense can know or guess that. Perhaps the one guy that denied him the rug was the only one that knew that, however, in which case it still wasn't his fault, he was just judging based on what experience he had regarding criminals acting as if in pain.

The guy wasn't a cop. And what's not to say he liked the guy suffering since he put up a fight.

Finally, consider this.

Would real policemen have kept him on the ground in that situation? Probably not.

Okay, first of all, you can't walk a guy with five people holding him well, especially with his shirt off. You've got one or two with half-ass, civilian grips on his bare chest while moving. He could easily slip out and run for it. Police do it fine with "one person, maybe two, tops," because they are trained to do that. Last I checked, Walmart employees aren't. Use some common sense.
Oh, Walmart employees aren't trained to detain people? THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING IN THIS CASE?

You people are so not getting to keep the tiger

No cops involved here. Real cops wouldn't have handled it this way. Real cops let people go when people's lives are in danger. That's why criminals have high speed chases, you know.

By the way, you declined stercum wrong, and even if it was in the second declension, it would be stercos.

Real cops have training to better handle the situation, so obviously you'd be right, they wouldn't handle it that way.

And, if it were second declension, I believe that would be fine, as it would mean Eat Shit, speaking to multiple people talking about one piece of shit. But, now that you mention it, I suppose stercus isn't masculine, but I can't remember what it is, and I'm not sure I care, but I'll ask anyway because obviously you know.

What kind of training gave the onlookers the ability to tell whether or not a criminal was faking it or seriously in pain? Were they all former CIA agents?
I doubt it very much, which is exactly my point. If they could tell the guy was in danger even though they had no specialised training, then why could not the Walmart employees? I see no reason why the onlookers would have an advantage in assesing the risk to the person, so it stands to reason if they realised, so should have the Walmart employees.

Or perhaps they were all brilliant thinkers and all of the employees were mentally retarded. Where's the evidence to suggest that the onlookers who deemed the man endangered had specialized knowledge about asphalt, or, better yet, any more knowledge than the employees on the matter, whatsoever?
There is none. That is my point. If 30 people without specialised training or knowledge can tell someone is in danger, it seems a bit silly to claim that the Walmart employees somehow couldnt or should not have reached the same conclusion.

This entire rant is bullshit. I am certified to give CPR, I have a little card in my wallet that says I am licensed to do so, and I can tell you from experience that any dumbass who has seen an episode of ER could figure it out enough to try it.
You can say that as much as you like, but performing medical interventions without proper training exposes one to certain legal liabilities.

The only thing they might do wrong is press too hard and break a rib or forget to tilt the head back, neither of which are more fatal than just letting him sit there. Besides, I believe that it was said that they lied about that to cover their asses at first, and I don't blame them.
Right, they like to cover their asses, which suggests their assesment was their asses were at risk, which suggests their assesment is that their actions would not if truthfully described stand up to legal scrutiny...'nough said really.

They may have thought he was fucking with them and let him sit there instead of acting, which I would say is perfectly reasonable, given the nature of hostile criminals - and this guy was hostile, as he used force to attempt to flee the scene.
He was within his rights to attempt to flee people who had physically attacked him. To suggest that if someone who has no legal right to touch you, tries to grab you, that your struggling to free yourself proves you are hostile is just plain silly.

Neither group had formal training that would allow them to make an educated decision as to whether or not the man was truly in danger, so it doesn't matter who was correct, as they were simply guessing anyway.
People are required where they have no special training to employ good sense. The onlookers formed an opinion that was correct (the man did die), and you have not offered a single reason why the Walmart employees could not or should not have arrived at the same apparently self-evident conclusion. I suggest no such reason exists.

They didnt mean to kill him, (( they didnt this was an unfortunate accident and regardless of who you support he must share in some of the culpability in this for starting the whole mess))


Never said he was innocent. However, being a criminal says you deserve jail. You don't deserve to be killed. What if it was a case of mistaken identity? It does happen.


THEY DID NOT INTEND TO KILL HIM...does anybody not see that....

Yes. We have a term for that. It's called manslaughter. If on review it is showed they used bad judgement and or excesive force, they will be charged for it.


and if that man cared anything about his kid he would not have been stealing in the first place.


Oh man. Some people steal because they care for their kid. You ever lived in a slum area? I have. You don't know his story.

OH and to whoever said Americans deserve to live in a police state.... that was pretty rude considering you dont live here and dont know what goes on. Everybody is reacting to media sensationlism as well. HOw the hell does anyone know how long he was there? Did someone break out a timer? I bet ..it wasnt that long!!

Psst. It's called security cameras. They tend to have them pointing at the entrances. Review will show when he arrived and when he left.

The fact they could tell when he stopped fighting and when ES guys showed up says they got more then a few of them up.....

Real cops have training to better handle the situation, so obviously you'd be right, they wouldn't handle it that way.

And, if it were second declension, I believe that would be fine, as it would mean Eat Shit, speaking to multiple people talking about one piece of shit. But, now that you mention it, I suppose stercus isn't masculine, but I can't remember what it is, and I'm not sure I care, but I'll ask anyway because obviously you know.
I believe 'common sense' comes into play here that you don't handcuff someone, shove them into hot asphalt on a day when the mercury most likely topped 100 and leave them there with at least 500 pounds on top of them. You certainly don't keep doing it if he's showing signs of distress, regardless of if he might be 'faking it', because the EMS teams are trained to deal with criminals as well as other people. You call them if he's showing signs of medical problems, you don't keep sitting on top of him until he dies.


Neuter, but I'd be buggered if I can tell you the declension it's in. It's us, -orus.

So what if he does? A guy running down the street with handcuffs on tends to get noticed.

Contrary to popular belief, people don't try to stop people fleeing in handcuffs on their own on a regular basis. Whether he's noticed or not, he could still manage to get away.

Actually you are wrong. I worked at Sears and we had shoplifters. The majority didn't make a rucus.

And my friend's Dad was a cop, and the majority of criminals he dealt with did overact. What the fuck is your point?

The guy wasn't a cop. And what's not to say he liked the guy suffering since he put up a fight.

I guess that's remotely possible, but who's to say it matters? Unless he wanted the guy to die for it, and thought he could, it was an accident that directly resulted from the shoplifter's actions.

Finally, consider this.

Would real policemen have kept him on the ground in that situation? Probably not.

Gee, you're so original, it's not like that's been said numerous times already, and it's not as if I've replied to it every time or anything. As I said, of course police would move him, because they know how to.

You can say that as much as you like, but performing medical interventions without proper training exposes one to certain legal liabilities.


Actually if there is a good samaritan law on the books you can't be held liable if you were making an honest effort to save the person.

Contrary to popular belief, people don't try to stop people fleeing in handcuffs on their own on a regular basis. Whether he's noticed or not, he could still manage to get away.
Aha, and if restrained he could die. The chances of him getting away permently were very minimal. Criminals running about the place in handcuffs, must once they get away have the cuffs removed before they are out of immediate danger of apprehension, if he managed that rather clever and unlikely feat, then there is still video tape evidence which can identify him so he could be apprehended later. The chances of his not being eventually apprehended are thus marginal. More stastitically unlikely than the chances of him suffering heart seizure. When you compound this with the marginal cost of his getting away permently with the much more substantial cost of his dying, it doesnt take much good sense (in fact common sense would probably suffice, let alone good sense) to work out which is the better risk and the better course of action.

Why didn't the Wally-Mart staff call the police immediately? Isn't crime enforcement a function of the police?

Contrary to popular belief, people don't try to stop people fleeing in handcuffs on their own on a regular basis. Whether he's noticed or not, he could still manage to get away.


Well the fact the store calling the police saying a shop lifter was handcuffed and got away kind of would make the cops look for him.


And my friend's Dad was a cop, and the majority of criminals he dealt with did overact. What the fuck is your point?

The fact you dad is a cop means nothing in this matter unless he works part time in retail. The fact I have witnessed a few cases where they didn't make a scene says your statement that they all make a scene is not correct.


it was an accident that directly resulted from the shoplifter's actions.

Well that is why the charge of manslaughter exists. They didn't intend to kill him but that doesn't excuse them.

My second job retail job was the Disney Store. I will wait for you to stop laughing. :) Disneys policy was to challenge shop lifters but to not physically challenge them. They felt the value of the merchandise was not worth the possible injuries, etc.


Gee, you're so original, it's not like that's been said numerous times already, and it's not as if I've replied to it every time or anything. As I said, of course police would move him, because they know how to.

We shall see what happens. I think it will be shown that it was bad judgment compounded by excesive force.

I doubt it very much, which is exactly my point. If they could tell the guy was in danger even though they had no specialised training, then why could not the Walmart employees? I see no reason why the onlookers would have an advantage in assesing the risk to the person, so it stands to reason if they realised, so should have the Walmart employees.


There is none. That is my point. If 30 people without specialised training or knowledge can tell someone is in danger, it seems a bit silly to claim that the Walmart employees somehow couldnt or should not have reached the same conclusion.

Holy shit, man, you must be messing with me. My entire point was that the people who thought he was honestly in danger probably would have thought that regardless of whether or not it was true, because they had no educated idea, so there was no reason that the Walmart employees should have drawn the same conclusion as if that were the correct conclusion to draw.

You can say that as much as you like, but performing medical interventions without proper training exposes one to certain legal liabilities.

You implied it was difficult, I was pointing out that it isn't. That's all. I never said you can't be held liable for unauthorized attempts at CPR.


Right, they like to cover their asses, which suggests their assesment was their asses were at risk, which suggests their assesment is that their actions would not if truthfully described stand up to legal scrutiny...'nough said really.

No, not really, because I would imagine most people in that situation would probably be a bit scared, even being entirely in the clear, because a human being died in front of them. Fear makes liars out of the best of us.

He was within his rights to attempt to flee people who had physically attacked him. To suggest that if someone who has no legal right to touch you, tries to grab you, that your struggling to free yourself proves you are hostile is just plain silly.

They didn't physically attack him, if you would actually learn to read. They grabbed him to bring him back to the store, then he wrestled with them. Grabbing someone by the shirt is hardly physically attacking someone, it's stopping them for a second. They also called for him to stop and he didn't.

People are required where they have no special training to employ good sense. The onlookers formed an opinion that was correct (the man did die), and you have not offered a single reason why the Walmart employees could not or should not have arrived at the same apparently self-evident conclusion. I suggest no such reason exists.

Can you read? I've said it over and over again. Criminals overact. Nobody knew whether the criminal was being honest in this instance, and so neither conclusion should have been more obvious than the other. The conclusion that kept the criminal detained should have been used, and it was, and it didn't work out for the hostile criminal. Tough luck. He shouldn't have tried to steal shit, and shouldn't have struggled when he got caught. He brought it on himself.

Can you read? I've said it over and over again. Criminals overact. Nobody knew whether the criminal was being honest in this instance, and so neither conclusion should have been more obvious than the other. The conclusion that kept the criminal detained should have been used, and it was, and it didn't work out for the hostile criminal. Tough luck. He shouldn't have tried to steal shit, and shouldn't have struggled when he got caught. He brought it on himself.
It doesn't matter if you're an ACCUSED criminal or not. You still have the same basic rights as everyone else. Equal protection under the laws is in our Constitution. The people restraining him did so with conscious disregard of his wellbeing. That disgard lead to his death. As such, the people restraining him committed reckless homicide. Do you wish to argue this legal point, or do you concede it?

Well the fact the store calling the police saying a shop lifter was handcuffed and got away kind of would make the cops look for him.

Gee, let's hope he didn't get out of those handcuffs and grab his gun. But that's unlikely, so let's not worry about it. The criminal's comfort and safety is much more important than that of the police or the employees.

The fact you dad is a cop means nothing in this matter unless he works part time in retail. The fact I have witnessed a few cases where they didn't make a scene says your statement that they all make a scene is not correct.

Can't anyone read? First of all, it wasn't my Dad, it was my neighbor's Dad. Second of all, when did I say once that all criminals make a scene? I'll give you a hint: the answer rhymes with "ever." Many do, maybe shoplifters are a special case, I don't know, but I doubt it.

Well that is why the charge of manslaughter exists. They didn't intend to kill him but that doesn't excuse them.

Manslaughter isn't and shouldn't be used for cases where a criminal dies in the process of being detained, especially if that criminal was hostile.

My second job retail job was the Disney Store. I will wait for you to stop laughing. :) Disneys policy was to challenge shop lifters but to not physically challenge them. They felt the value of the merchandise was not worth the possible injuries, etc.

Good for Disney. I disagree with them. Point being?

We shall see what happens. I think it will be shown that it was bad judgment compounded by excesive force.

You will probably end up being correct, but only because there are too many people that feel sorry for criminals out there. It will not make the punishing of the employees any more just an act.

Manslaughter isn't and shouldn't be used for cases where a criminal dies in the process of being detained, especially if that criminal was hostile.


Wonderful. Why don't we just shoot accused criminals in the back of the head when they 'resist' arrest.

It doesn't matter if you're an ACCUSED criminal or not. You still have the same basic rights as everyone else. Equal protection under the laws is in our Constitution. The people restraining him did so with conscious disregard of his wellbeing. That disgard lead to his death. As such, the people restraining him committed reckless homicide. Do you wish to argue this legal point, or do you concede it?

No, because A: the disregard was necessary to keep him detained, and B: the disregard was not necessarily conscious if they thought the criminal would be fine as far as his remaining alive and intact goes.

Holy shit, man, you must be messing with me. My entire point was that the people who thought he was honestly in danger probably would have thought that regardless of whether or not it was true, because they had no educated idea, so there was no reason that the Walmart employees should have drawn the same conclusion as if that were the correct conclusion to draw.
I see no reason to assume they were less educated about whether or not he was in danger than the Walmart employees, certainly he did die...

You implied it was difficult, I was pointing out that it isn't. That's all. I never said you can't be held liable for unauthorized attempts at CPR.
I did not imply it was difficult, I stated that it is not entirely sensible to attempt if you have no notion of how or when it is proper to attempt. On the one hand they had no way of knowing he was in danger, on the other they believed he was in danger and attempted CPR based on that belief...

No, not really, because I would imagine most people in that situation would probably be a bit scared, even being entirely in the clear, because a human being died in front of them. Fear makes liars out of the best of us.
You stated they were probably covering their asses...seems to me it is no more unreasonable to believe an innocent person might run than it is to believe an innocent person might lie...

They didn't physically attack him, if you would actually learn to read. They grabbed him to bring him back to the store, then he wrestled with them. Grabbing someone by the shirt is hardly physically attacking someone, it's stopping them for a second. They also called for him to stop and he didn't.
Grabbing someone is a physical attack. Unless you can provide some lawful excuse for doing so it is an illegal physical attack. If there is a lawful reason for doing so it is still a physical attack, just not of a type society deems punishable by law. That does not mean that a person is obliged to not resist when a private citizen attempts to restrain them.

Can you read? I've said it over and over again. Criminals overact. Nobody knew whether the criminal was being honest in this instance, and so neither conclusion should have been more obvious than the other.
It is not merely the liklihood he that the person is or is not over-reacting. It is the consquences and their likliehood of occuring of each of the alternatives available. There was a possiblity that he might evade punishment much smaller than the possibility he might have a heart seizure, and the consequences of him evading punishment are much less undesirable than the consequences of his suffering heart seizure and dying. The chances of his getting away were unrealisitically small, the chances of his having a heart seizure were greater, and the consequences of the latter much worse.

The conclusion that kept the criminal detained should have been used, and it was, and it didn't work out for the hostile criminal. Tough luck. He shouldn't have tried to steal shit, and shouldn't have struggled when he got caught. He brought it on himself.
No, and if you really think they showed good or even adequate judgement, you must be a bookie's dream come true.

No, because A: the disregard was necessary to keep him detained, and B: the disregard was not necessarily conscious if they thought the criminal would be fine as far as his remaining alive and intact goes.
Bullshit. You admitted yourself that the actions were not necessary.

Wonderful. Why don't we just shoot accused criminals in the back of the head when they 'resist' arrest.

What do you mean, "'resist?'" He did resist, period. And I already said that in arguing this point I am assuming the man was shoplifting, due to his attempt to flee and the fact that the employees went after him in the first place. I'm sure the security tapes will show the same.

What do you mean, "'resist?'" He did resist, period. And I already said that in arguing this point I am assuming the man was shoplifting, due to his attempt to flee and the fact that the employees went after him in the first place. I'm sure the security tapes will show the same.
Resistance which in no way placed anyone in serious bodily harm. The actions of the employees, on the other hand, as a result of attempting to rather illegally detain him, killed the man. Not legal. Not under the laws of the United States.

Bullshit. You admitted yourself that the actions were not necessary.

Where did I say that?

Resistance which in no way placed anyone in serious bodily harm. The actions of the employees, on the other hand, as a result of attempting to rather illegally detain him, killed the man. Not legal. Not under the laws of the United States.

Bullshit, perfectly legal, he stole from them, they're allowed to detain him, his death was a result of his struggle.

Bullshit, perfectly legal, he stole from them, they're allowed to detain him, his death was a result of his struggle.
Deadly force is not allowed to be used in the protection of property.

Where did I say that?
Real cops have training to better handle the situation, so obviously you'd be right, they wouldn't handle it that way.

By your own admission, there is another way to handle this. One that I, a normal person, have stumbled upon using something called 'common sense'. So your statement that they had to do it that way, a way that had a callous and conscious disregard for a person's life, is wrong.

Gee, let's hope he didn't get out of those handcuffs and grab his gun. But that's unlikely, so let's not worry about it. The criminal's comfort and safety is much more important than that of the police or the employees.


Yea you are right he could have got that gun and shot everybody while his hand were behind his back. Then he could of ran away and raped some granny and shot up a bus load of kids. Kicked a few dogs.

Your argument and this example is called a strawman.


Can't anyone read? First of all, it wasn't my Dad, it was my neighbor's Dad. Second of all, when did I say once that all criminals make a scene? I'll give you a hint: the answer rhymes with "ever." Many do, maybe shoplifters are a special case, I don't know, but I doubt it.


Awww damn you forgot to read your comments.

For the last time, people, quit mentioning that he was begging to be let up and acted like he was in intense pain. It's a moot point, because criminals do similar things all the time, and nothing should have indicated to an untrained employee that this situation was any more real than your average instance of a criminal raising hell for the audience.


Manslaughter isn't and shouldn't be used for cases where a criminal dies in the process of being detained, especially if that criminal was hostile.

That is why manslaughter exists. So criminals won't be "shot while trying to escape" all the time.

Why do you think a cop gets investigated for discharging his weapon?


Good for Disney. I disagree with them. Point being?

Walmart is probably going to loose a great deal of money over this.


You will probably end up being correct, but only because there are too many people that feel sorry for criminals out there. It will not make the punishing of the employees any more just an act.

Walmart should be punished over this. If they are going to have a policy to physically detain anybody no matter what then those employees charged with doing that task should be properly trained on how to do it.

That is the reason for the Disney comment.

Deadly force is not allowed to be used in the protection of property.

Oh... my... God... I thought we cleared this up. If someone comes to your house and takes your shit, you can shoot him. Correct? Correct. If they die because of you shooting them, A: you are liable, B: it's their problem? B.

I am tired of listening to this crap. Obviously logic is beyond you and you have a soft-spot for criminals that I don't understand. It's 2:22 AM and I want to sleep and I'm about 10 seconds from some bigtime flaming. As I'm not interested in getting banned and all the stupidity in this thread is giving me a headache, I must take my leave. I'm out.

Oh... my... God... I thought we cleared this up. If someone comes to your house and takes your shit, you can shoot him. Correct? Correct. If they die because of you shooting them, A: you are liable, B: it's their problem? B.

I am tired of listening to this crap. Obviously logic is beyond you and you have a soft-spot for criminals that I don't understand. It's 2:22 AM and I want to sleep and I'm about 10 seconds from some bigtime flaming. As I'm not interested in getting banned and all the stupidity in this thread is giving me a headache, I must take my leave. I'm out.
No, you can't.

To quote from findlaw:
"May an owner of property use deadly force to defend their property?

Generally speaking, an owner of property may not use deadly force to defend the property. Society views the value of human life and bodily integrity to be much higher than the value of property. Therefore, the life, health, and safety of an individual, even an intruder, is considered to be more valuable than the china or stereo that the individual is trying to steal.
...
Once a request has been made, and the intruder refuses to comply with the request, the owner may use such force as is appropriate to that specific situation. Once force is invoked, if the intruder persists, the use of force may be justifiably increased. The use of force calculated to do great bodily harm, or cause death, is not permitted.

The use of deadly force is authorized, however, where an intruder threatens personal safety, or where the intruder is committing a forcible felony. For example, if a robber enters a home and, while stealing items, attempts to rape the homeowner, the owner may be justified in shooting the robber. However, an owner who witnesses a neighborhood child stealing a bicycle from his garage, without any threat of bodily harm, is not justified in shooting that child."

Oh... my... God... I thought we cleared this up. If someone comes to your house and takes your shit, you can shoot him. Correct? Correct. If they die because of you shooting them, A: you are liable, B: it's their problem? B.

I am tired of listening to this crap. Obviously logic is beyond you and you have a soft-spot for criminals that I don't understand. It's 2:22 AM and I want to sleep and I'm about 10 seconds from some bigtime flaming. As I'm not interested in getting banned and all the stupidity in this thread is giving me a headache, I must take my leave. I'm out.

Bad example because you can claim you felt your life was in danger.

Oh... my... God... I thought we cleared this up. If someone comes to your house and takes your shit, you can shoot him. Correct? Correct. If they die because of you shooting them, A: you are liable, B: it's their problem? B.

I am tired of listening to this crap. Obviously logic is beyond you and you have a soft-spot for criminals that I don't understand. It's 2:22 AM and I want to sleep and I'm about 10 seconds from some bigtime flaming. As I'm not interested in getting banned and all the stupidity in this thread is giving me a headache, I must take my leave. I'm out.
Jesus fucking christ! So material possessions, your material possessions > human life? How the fuck can an object be more valuable than the life of any criminal? Oh yeah, only in the wonderful black and white world of most conservatives.

Bad example because you can claim you felt your life was in danger.
God I really really really hate the stand your ground doctrine. That said, it doesn't apply in his hypothetical. He's just wrong.

I am tired of listening to this crap. Obviously logic is beyond you and you have a soft-spot for criminals that I don't understand.

Once again this person was accused of a crime by private citizens, not convicted.

As for a softspot, maybe some of us know how out of control vigilente citizens have gotten. Want an example? Two friends of mine were present when a car drove into a people, and came to a stop after hitting another car. People present dragged the driver from his car and beat him. The man was dead when the police arrived.

Sound justified? Hardly, the only fortunate aspect of this event is that when they pulled the man from the car and started beating his corpse, he was already dead from the heart attack that caused him to loose control of his car. Absolutely savagery and it starts with flagrant disregard for the humanity of people whether they be criminals or not.

Okay, this is the last reply for you Forrest.

Yea you are right he could have got that gun and shot everybody while his hand were behind his back. Then he could of ran away and raped some granny and shot up a bus load of kids. Kicked a few dogs.

Gee, you mean he couldn't find a sharp edge or something? Or go hide in his house, figure out how to get the cuffs off over an hour, and wait for the cops to show up?

Awww damn you forgot to read your comments.

*grumbles to self*

all the time

1. Also, all the while. Throughout a specific period, as in All the time the music was playing she tapped her foot, or The baby slept all the while the fire was being put out. [Late 1400s]

2. Continuously, without interruption, as in That old refrigerator is running all the time.

3. Frequently, repeatedly, as in He goes to that store all the time.

If you would have read all my previous comments, you wouldn't have been confused by slang. All the time is almost never taken literally. If I actually meant "all the time" literally, I would have simply said "always."

That is why manslaughter exists. So criminals won't be "shot while trying to escape" all the time.

Why do you think a cop gets investigated for discharging his weapon?

Depends on the situation, and no, manslaughter exists for many reasons other than punishing the wicked, evil, sadistic people who don't like to have their homes invaded.


Walmart is probably going to loose a great deal of money over this.

Do I care? They can afford it.

Walmart should be punished over this. If they are going to have a policy to physically detain anybody no matter what then those employees charged with doing that task should be properly trained on how to do it.

I could agree with that. But the employees should not be punished at all. Period. They did what they were supposed to. And it was still the criminal's fault he died.

End.

I could agree with that. But the employees should not be punished at all. Period. They did what they were supposed to. And it was still the criminal's fault he died.

End.

No, no it wasn't. The use of deadly force is not allowed to defend property. How many times do I have to say this? It's a legal doctrine that goes back through english common law.

God I really really really hate the stand your ground doctrine. That said, it doesn't apply in his hypothetical. He's just wrong.

I wasn't suggesting it had anything to do with this situation.

But he is right. A friend who is a cop once joked "if you shoot him, make sure you drag him inside."

It's kind of hard to prove that you didn't feel your life was in danger especially if the invader is dead.

It's dangerous to simply challenge somebody. One woman told me a story of her daugher and her husband in Austin. The man always kept a side arm at his bedside. They had a break in. He got up to investigate and the criminal fired at what he thought was the husband. The husband wounded him but nothing was filed against him. Probably because he fired first......

I wasn't suggesting it had anything to do with this situation.

But he is right. A friend who is a cop once joked "if you shoot him, make sure you drag him inside."

It's kind of hard to prove that you didn't feel your life was in danger especially if the invader is dead.

It's dangerous to simply challenge somebody. One woman told me a story of her daugher and her husband in Austin. The man always kept a side arm at his bedside. They had a break in. He got up to investigate and the criminal fired at what he thought was the husband. The husband wounded him but nothing was filed against him. Probably because he fired first......
Yes, it is, but we're making the assumption that the homeowner isn't going to lie to save his ass.

Edete Stercum,

Get this in your frontal lobe already:

1. The employees were NOT cops nor authorized to use force.
2. The man was handcuffed which CLEARLY states that even if he ran away, he will not be able to break loose from it in a quick moment, nor was he going to get far, nor was he going to be able to drive.
3. After he requested for help, he should have been granted that, by removing his handcuffs, taking him inside the store, turning him on his back, ask if anyone knows CPR, and calling the ambulance.
4. As the article states, he exchanged the item for something more expensive, which clearly means it was 5-10 dollars maximum.

If the man was released from handcuffs, and he ran away, at least Wal-Mart wouldn't have that whole mess over their heads. That's common sense, and please, next time you want to argue over an article, read it first. If you fail to analyze it, than please refrain from replying.

Once again this person was accused of a crime by private citizens, not convicted.

As for a softspot, maybe some of us know how out of control vigilente citizens have gotten. Want an example? Two friends of mine were present when a car drove into a people, and came to a stop after hitting another car. People present dragged the driver from his car and beat him. The man was dead when the police arrived.

Sound justified? Hardly, the only fortunate aspect of this event is that when they pulled the man from the car and started beating his corpse, he was already dead from the heart attack that caused him to loose control of his car. Absolutely savagery and it starts with flagrant disregard for the humanity of people whether they be criminals or not.

I suppose people, in general, are getting fed up with what they see as disproportionally lenient punishments for crimes, and the disproportionally large number of rights criminals get.
These people probably felt, however misguided, that they had to beat the driver, because otherwise he would have, in their eyes, gotten away with his 'crime' with a minor punishment.
In short, people seem to be losing faith in the justice system.

Jesus fucking christ! So material possessions, your material possessions > human life? How the fuck can an object be more valuable than the life of any criminal? Oh yeah, only in the wonderful black and white world of most conservatives.
did you not get the memo? accumulation and retention of capital is of greater concern than the existence of other sentient beings.

Once again this person was accused of a crime by private citizens, not convicted.

As for a softspot, maybe some of us know how out of control vigilente citizens have gotten. Want an example? Two friends of mine were present when a car drove into a people, and came to a stop after hitting another car. People present dragged the driver from his car and beat him. The man was dead when the police arrived.

Sound justified? Hardly, the only fortunate aspect of this event is that when they pulled the man from the car and started beating his corpse, he was already dead from the heart attack that caused him to loose control of his car. Absolutely savagery and it starts with flagrant disregard for the humanity of people whether they be criminals or not.
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer makes George park in the handicap zone and then when some woman dies or something cuz the handicap zone was taken, then the four come back to find the car totally smashed and set on fire by an angry mob in the parking lot.

I suppose people, in general, are getting fed up with what they see as disproportionally lenient punishments for crimes, and the disproportionally large number of rights criminals get.
These people probably felt, however misguided, that they had to beat the driver, because otherwise he would have, in their eyes, gotten away with his 'crime' with a minor punishment.
In short, people seem to be losing faith in the justice system.

Oh yes, losing faith in the justice system justifies the act of others who are fed up by it by abusing it for their own gratification and rebellion.

Where is Hitler when you need him to sterilize some people?

Yes, it is, but we're making the assumption that the homeowner isn't going to lie to save his ass.

Until they create a machine it could very well be that he thought he was defending his family.

Remember: Innocent until proven guilty. :p

Let me quote something:
"Any merchant who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed retail theft may detain such person, on or off the premises of a retail mercantile establishment, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time for all or any of the following purposes:

1. In request identification;
2. To verify such identification;
3. To make reasonable inquiry as to whether such person has in his possession unpurchased merchandise and, to make reasonable investigation of the ownership of such merchandise;
4. To inform a peace officer of the detention of the person and surrender that person to the custody of a peace officer;"


The key words here are "reasonable manner". I think we can all agree nothing in the actions of the wal-mart employees were reasonable past a certain point. So then they had committed the tort of false imprisonment, no?

(this is a different state law, but more for the example)

I suppose people, in general, are getting fed up with what they see as disproportionally lenient punishments for crimes, and the disproportionally large number of rights criminals get.
These people probably felt, however misguided, that they had to beat the driver, because otherwise he would have, in their eyes, gotten away with his 'crime' with a minor punishment.
In short, people seem to be losing faith in the justice system.
I completely understand the motivation, but that is really the whole point. People feel justified and act on the moment without full regard for all possible facts, or the consequences. For this reason there is a policy of giving trained persons responsibility for dealing with those suspected of crimes. That an innocent person who had a heart attack while driving and is unconcious but still alive, might be dragged from their car and beated to death by a mobb because people who actually are criminals have not been adequately punished, is not a just or desirable outcome, (particularly if you are the person being beaten to death). That is why I find such harsh in inhumane attitudes towards even those who have commited crimes undesirable. The fact is once this attitude is ok towards criminals, then by necessity it is ok where people believe someone is a criminal. Will those who approve of the employee's actions feel the same way if it eventuates the person was actually innocent of shoplifting. I suspect not, which really proves that once someone thinks it's ok to behave this way to an actual criminal, it's now just a matter of bad luck if you happen to be an innocent.

The best policy is to accept that this kind of behaviour is just not justified, even if someone has commited a crime. If you cannot safely restrain a person, then better to let them go than risk the progression to pulling innocent victims of medical conditions from their cars and beating them.

Until they create a machine it could very well be that he thought he was defending his family.

Remember: Innocent until proven guilty. :p
Isn't self-defense an affirmative defense?

The title is a bit misleading. Walmart didn't murder the customer. It is employees who I feel should be held criminally liable for homicide.

And technically, the guy wasn't a customer.

Edete Stercum,

Get this in your frontal lobe already:

1. The employees were NOT cops nor authorized to use force.

I thought it was pretty much standard at retailers or any store for that matter, that you are not allowed to chase after people, as my manager explicitly told me that...After I chased down someone who stole a pack of gum and then shot him in the head three times! :p Maybe Wal :) Mart (or should it be Wal :mp5: Mart!?) could hire it's own security force to handle such happenings. They can be paid the standard $3.00/hour with no overtime pay, and sit in little cages in front of the stores until someone steals something. Then they are released and murder the guy.

Maybe Wal :) Mart (or should it be Wal :mp5: Mart!?) could hire it's own security force to handle such happenings. They can be paid the standard $3.00/hour with no overtime pay, and sit in little cages in front of the stores until someone steals something. Then they are released and murder the guy.
As an incentive I propose Wal Mart security forces be given a discount card for bovine growth hormone tablets and anabolic steroids.

You know, to give 'em that...erm, 'killer edge'.

And technically, the guy wasn't a customer.

Actually, the guy was, since he was EXCHANGING an item.

Read the article please, again and again and again and again, until you get it.

Oh yes, losing faith in the justice system justifies the act of others who are fed up by it by abusing it for their own gratification and rebellion.

Where is Hitler when you need him to sterilize some people?

I'm sorry, where did I say it was justified? I was merely making an observation.

Frankly, I find your suggestion that Hitler should sterilize me rather offensive. Especially considering the moral high ground you appear to be claiming.

I completely understand the motivation, but that is really the whole point. People feel justified and act on the moment without full regard for all possible facts, or the consequences. For this reason there is a policy of giving trained persons responsibility for dealing with those suspected of crimes. That an innocent person who had a heart attack while driving and is unconcious but still alive, might be dragged from their car and beated to death by a mobb because people who actually are criminals have not been adequately punished, is not a just or desirable outcome, (particularly if you are the person being beaten to death). That is why I find such harsh in inhumane attitudes towards even those who have commited crimes undesirable. The fact is once this attitude is ok towards criminals, then by necessity it is ok where people believe someone is a criminal. Will those who approve of the employee's actions feel the same way if it eventuates the person was actually innocent of shoplifting. I suspect not, which really proves that once someone thinks it's ok to behave this way to an actual criminal, it's now just a matter of bad luck if you happen to be an innocent.

The best policy is to accept that this kind of behaviour is just not justified, even if someone has commited a crime. If you cannot safely restrain a person, then better to let them go than risk the progression to pulling innocent victims of medical conditions from their cars and beating them.

Exactly. Unfortunately, angry people tend to put little priority to being sensible.

I'm sorry, where did I say it was justified? I was merely making an observation.

Frankly, I find your suggestion that Hitler should sterilize me rather offensive. Especially considering the moral high ground you appear to be claiming.

I never directed the latter comment at you. I apologize if it seemed so.

Nevermind the ethics, the technical small laws of such and such district in whatever state (since most people are using their home state).
Let's try the biggest law. I'm going to quote the Constitution - namely, the 4th and 5th amendments of the Bill of Rights.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This means that he had the right to be secure in his person (ie he himself) against unreasonable seizures (being grabbed as he was, and what's more, pinned to the pavement) except upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation (an official police report just for detainment, full trial for anything more).



Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No person (including criminals) shall be deprived of life (ex. letting him die on the pavement) without due process of law (a trial, as opposed to employee words and decisions).


And will people please keep in mind that he has yet to be proven guilty, and the laws of this land say innocent until proven guilty? Arguing is pointless until you say what you think should have happened considering that no such trial occurred, and that people have to act accordingly.

Exactly. Unfortunately, angry people tend to put little priority to being sensible.
That is completely true. This is why I make every attempt to minimise the anger I feel towards criminals. The fact is I do not wish to suffer diminishment of my reasoning capacities as a result of someone else's failure to abide by the law. Just imagine how the people who dragged that man out of his car and beat his corpse must have felt when the realised the savagery to which they had been parties. Turning oneself into someone who would do that is just not worth any possible gain that might eventuate from feeling 'really angry' at 'bad people'.

There is far too much opportunity for misunderstanding in a situation like this and its tragic that someone had to die , in the end the police will work it out , someone will be blamed , someones getting a pay out and a bunch of lawers will make a living out of it for the next three or four years

Once upon a time I was driving down a main road when an overhanging tree broke my radio aerial off , I pulled up and collected the aerial ... It was dangerous to try fix it there on the road , it was 4am and pitch black so I pulled into the carpark of a shopping centre a little way up the road ....It just so happened the shopping centre was being broken into and an alarm had been tripped ....three unmarked cars came roaring down the highway driving like lunatics just as I had started to drive off ....lights and sirens came on and my "escape" was blocked , my girlfriend panicked and jumped out of the car (it was VERY late and her mum had no idea she was out with me) she was grabbed by the police and dumped on the ground

Fortunately sanity prevailed , we had the opportunity to explain ourselves , we were arrested and one of the officers drove our car to the station ...on the trip the aerial sat back in place properly and the radio was suddenly blaring in his ear ..we were finger printed our families were called and apart from pissed off parents all ended well

it COULD have been a lot different had we come across wannabe heroes instead of well trained police

I sympathize with the victim (no not walmart)

Wow.

The news story is depressing, but this thread is more depressing. Since when is being suspected of shoplifting a crime punishable by death? To the people who have argued "he's a criminal, it's his own fault" - please stay somewhere far away from me. I've been assaulted in the past, and if a group of strange men with no authority to do so grabbed me, I have no doubt I'd panic and run like hell. I'd rather not have you standing by claiming that that makes it "my fault" if they then kill me.

I also can't fathom how anyone can think the price of a BB gun and/or diapers could possibly be remotely equivalent to the worth of a human life, even that of a thief. Wal-Mart's policy is ridiculous; the behavior of the employees involved was even more ridiculous, and I very much hope they are held criminally liable.


Edit: And WTF is with people these days? "About 30 people were saying, 'Let him up, it's too hot...'" Why did not one of these people come to his aid when he was screaming for people to help him?

Probably because they were all waiting for one of the other 29 to do so. That's basic social psychology for you. Sad, huh?

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be human - you just figure dolphins or chimpanzees don't do crap like this. :(

Sick... Jesus is crying, for sure.

So the life of a man is worthless, as compared to a $50 BB gun? A man with a 2-month old baby? Anyhow who thinks so is just plain sadistic.

Personally, I think Wal-Mart should be sued and forced to change their policy, and the 3 or so men involved should be fined say $5,000 and forced to spend a year in Federal prison.

So lemme get this straight, a 30 year-old guy APPARENTLY switches stickers on one item, after which they case him into the parking lot, handcuff him, force him onto the blistering pavement and dig one of their's knee's into his back, ignoring his begging and the begging of random customers in the parking lot to let him up, and refusing to move him into shade, call the police or paramedics, or at least give him a rug to lay on?

I change my mind. Wal-Mart should be sued for even more, and the men involved should get at least 5 to 7 years in prison. Thank you.

This thread just shows how biased people are towards WalMart. If it had been shopping mall security that did this, no one wouldve said "Shopping mall murders customer".

First of all, Wal-Mart is not criminally liable, they may be held liable in a civil court though they will probably settle but they would never be held liable a criminal court. Second of all, this isnt murder since that requires intent and it is extremely difficult to argue that security intended to kill this person. There are a host of other charges which they may be found guilty of, but murder is not one of them.

For the last time, people, quit mentioning that he was begging to be let up and acted like he was in intense pain. It's a moot point, because criminals do similar things all the time, and nothing should have indicated to an untrained employee that this situation was any more real than your average instance of a criminal raising hell for the audience.

"Untrained employee" gets to the heart of the matter here. People who are given the tasks of using physical force on the public need to be given some training so they don't, you know, kill a guy.

To put this in crass consumerite terms,

Pilots make good money. This guy was halfway or more to getting his pilot's license. Wal-Mart is on the hook for a whopping big amount if they choose to settle. This poor fella's earning potential was massive.

Bet they're glad they (possibly) stopped an act of BB theivery now.

As long as he was pinned to the ground in handcuffs, yeah, he was controllable. What the hell does that have to do with letting him move? Someone walking with handcuffs behind their back can still run. As for your suggestion that not everyone knows criminals overact, I was never aware that people needed to be informed of that. Anyone that has turned their TV on once, knows a cop, or has any common sense can know or guess that. Perhaps the one guy that denied him the rug was the only one that knew that, however, in which case it still wasn't his fault, he was just judging based on what experience he had regarding criminals acting as if in pain.
The part that I don't get about all of these responses is the part where the guy "getting away" is worse than him being seriously injured or killed. How far would a guy in handcuffs and no shirt get anyway? Especially if they did what security guards are supposed to do and called the freaking police?

Isn't self-defense an affirmative defense?
Yes, it is.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that "the cops would have known how to move him and thus understandably acted differently" is total bullshit. I am pretty sure that between the 35 people there, some combination of them could have figured out how to move him. In fact, I would wager that any of the people in this thread could figure out how to move him when you have 35 people available and the suspect is cuffed.

The employees must have been trained in how to handle shoplifters. If Wal-Mart is training its employees to forcibly restrain people who have yet to be proved guilty of any crime, and who are crying out that they are in pain, then Wal-Mart is at fault.

I know this is a response to a long past reply, but my mom worked at Wal-Mart for almost 5 years, and she never once meantioned any kind of training on how/when/where to use the appropriate force to detain suspects. However, as seen here, they obviously have no problem dealing with it their own way. She related an incident to me about a "shoplifter" being caught, tackled, "handcuffed" with a zip-tie, and marched out the store through what is known as "Action Alley" to stand out in the parking lot, guarded by three cartpushers, to await the police's arival. The shoplifter, was an old (not OLD, but definitely a senior citizen) lady.

For those who might be interested, my story took place in Jacksonville, TX, some 300ish miles north of Houston, that's the area the death occured in if I remember correctly.

Yes, it is.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that "the cops would have known how to move him and thus understandably acted differently" is total bullshit. I am pretty sure that between the 35 people there, some combination of them could have figured out how to move him. In fact, I would wager that any of the people in this thread could figure out how to move him when you have 35 people available and the suspect is cuffed.
Not to mention, if somehow he had escaped them, he's still got his hands handcuffed behind his back. Not exactly the best circumstances for getting too far on his own.

I know this is a response to a long past reply, but my mom worked at Wal-Mart for almost 5 years, and she never once meantioned any kind of training on how/when/where to use the appropriate force to detain suspects. However, as seen here, they obviously have no problem dealing with it their own way. She related an incident to me about a "shoplifter" being caught, tackled, "handcuffed" with a zip-tie, and marched out the store through what is known as "Action Alley" to stand out in the parking lot, guarded by three cartpushers, to await the police's arival. The shoplifter, was an old (not OLD, but definitely a senior citizen) lady.
The lack of training is as bad, if not worse, than training them to forcibly restrain people.

While I wish we could see a federal raid (like Elian Gonzales) to shut down all Wal-Marts, we must realize THIS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9438472&postcount=1)
is not murder.
Criminal Negligence, assault and battery seem appropriate.

While I wish we could see a federal raid (like Elian Gonzales) to shut down all Wal-Marts, we must realize THIS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9438472&postcount=1)
is not murder.
Criminal Negligence, assault and battery seem appropriate.
I think that the poster was using hyperbole. We've actually had quite a discussion here and I think that the charge here would be some brand of manslaughter, either voluntary or involuntary depending on the facts.

Unless, of course, the one employee had ANOTHER reason for not letting the dude onto the carpet. I should hope not, and it's a bit out there, but it would explain why he was so obstinate about not even letting the dude onto carpet.

As for moving him with 35 people, have you seen what happens when someone gets hurt in a busy-ish place? About 10 people surround him/her, and the people who can actually help the person have a hard time getting through for a while. So, take the 35 (a lot more than 10), surround him with a few layers of people, and walk. It's rather easy, and heaven forbid he try to escape with handcuffs. Escaping really wouldn't work.

I always knew that walmart was evil. First they discriminate against women,, and now this :confused:? Another reason why your local Wlalmart is a place of evil.

While I wish we could see a federal raid (like Elian Gonzales) to shut down all Wal-Marts, we must realize THIS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9438472&postcount=1)
is not murder.
Criminal Negligence, assault and battery seem appropriate.

I just googled Texas Criminal Law, as it is my understanding that is where this occured, and an argument could be made that the actions f the Wal Mart employees could be murder under the following definiton:
By intending to cause serious bodily injury and committing an act that clearly endangers human life
IMO it became murder by this definition after the suspect began having breathing difficulties and no reasonable attempt, letting him up off the asphalt, or calling the paramedics was made. In fact the paramedics werent called until he had already been restrained for 7 minutes and he had stopped breathing. Another key point is that and no point does it mention that the police were called upon the apprehension of the suspect, whether his apprehension was legal or not I don't know.

I just googled Texas Criminal Law, as it is my understanding that is where this occured, and an argument could be made that the actions f the Wal Mart employees could be murder under the following definiton:

IMO it became murder by this definition after the suspect began having breathing difficulties and no reasonable attempt, letting him up off the asphalt, or calling the paramedics was made. In fact the paramedics werent called until he had already been restrained for 7 minutes and he had stopped breathing. Another key point is that and no point does it mention that the police were called upon the apprehension of the suspect, whether his apprehension was legal or not I don't know.
Well, he's right, it's not technically murder, because murder means that you had the intention of killing the person (or you did so in the furtherance of a felony). Here they let him die because they didn't care about his well-being and probably didn't think he would die. It's still disgusting, but it's a crime different than murder.

This thread just shows how biased people are towards WalMart. If it had been shopping mall security that did this, no one wouldve said "Shopping mall murders customer".I was at My friend's the other day...and his Family where watching COPS at FOX...

few things I noticed:

#1 US Police always gets their man [/sarcasm]

#2 if you run away from them, US police Go out of their way to Hurt you when they catch you.

#3 FOX will not show any incident in which the Suspect either got away...or got permanent damage from this "arrest procedure"

#2 if you run away from them, US police Go out of their way to Hurt you when they catch you.


Well, as distasteful as this is, it's understandable when you are talking about police. Once someone starts running from the police, there is a real danger that violence is forthcoming. After all, it's a small step from running (where do you think you are going?) and shooting. Running is a serious act of desperation on the part of the criminal, and anytime the police lose control of the situation they have reason to fear that things are going to escalate and the police or other bystanders might be hurt. The police are human as well, and they are going to react to what they view as an implied threat.

See my last post. The man was capable of lifting his body up even with 4 or 5 employees pinning him down. They would need to let his entire upper body get off the ground just to get the blanket under him. It would have been foolish, and almost certainly was the chance he would have used to escape them.

So you'd prefer someone to die than get away with petty theft?

Well, as distasteful as this is, it's understandable when you are talking about police. Once someone starts running from the police, there is a real danger that violence is forthcoming. After all, it's a small step from running (where do you think you are going?) and shooting. Running is a serious act of desperation on the part of the criminal, and anytime the police lose control of the situation they have reason to fear that things are going to escalate and the police or other bystanders might be hurt. The police are human as well, and they are going to react to what they view as an implied threat.IMO its less complicated then that.
they just want to discourage people from running away.

IMO its less complicated then that.
they just want to siscourage people from running away.
Well, that probably factors into it as well, but the fact remains that a suspect who runs from police poses a potential danger.

Personally, I think Wal-Mart should be sued and forced to change their policy, and the 3 or so men involved should be fined say $5,000 and forced to spend a year in Federal prison.


20 years, with a convicted horny rapist.

6 months to a year in prison is likely, although it would be a state prison because this is a state crime.

Having worked retail in a department store, I'm very shocked the employees were assinine and cruel enough to do that..our policy against shoplifting is to confront them only with a manager or store detective, associates and employees only keep watch on them, we don't, can't ,are not supposed to attempt to aprehend them, and even if they are caught in the act...you take them in back and show them evidence to prove the suspiscion that they have stolen, usually camera... I cannot understand why they acted in such a way...

I think they make the employees smile just a bit TOO much for the sake of their sanity....they snapped...