NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, that probably factors into it as well, but the fact remains that a suspect who runs from police poses a potential danger.some brazilean dude was killed by Police because he was running away....most likely because his Immigration papers were not 100% kosher.

The police believed he posed a potetial danger.

Had he not run away....he would be alive today.

some brazilean dude was killed by Police because he was running away....most likely because his Immigration papers were not 100% kosher.

The police believed he posed a potetial danger.

Had he not run away....he would be alive today.
Which really doesn't change the fact that some excessive force (five times?) was used...

some brazilean dude was killed by Police because he was running away....most likely because his Immigration papers were not 100% kosher.

The police believed he posed a potetial danger.

Had he not run away....he would be alive today.
"Now remember, do not run away from an angry dog, you will trigger it's natural instinct to hunt and kill.."

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.


I bet you're one of the employees who were holding him down and are trying to clear yourself. Otherwise your retarded. Which is why you would be working at Wally World anyways.

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...
all joking aside, I think that it comes down to either (a) Wal-Mart told them to do what it takes to catch shoplifters, or (b) Wal-Mart comes down hard on stores for their shrink ratio and offers no guidelines for their security personnel. Either option indicates real negligence on the part of Wal-Mart/

some brazilean dude was killed by Police because he was running away....most likely because his Immigration papers were not 100% kosher.

The police believed he posed a potetial danger.

Had he not run away....he would be alive today.
Well, that is a special case and that is the only time I have ever heard of police shooting a guy AFTER he was apprehended. Explanations have been given for that case, although not a complete excuse in my opinion.

I'm not saying that everyone who runs is dangerous. I'm saying that anyone who runs is more likely, from the cop's point of view, to pose a danger than someone who doesn't. When police lose control of an arrest, they are more likely to be killed or to have a bystander or suspect die on their watch.

What a sad affair! But everyone knows that the world's largest corporation is far more interested in making money than in the life of anyone, either that of their workers, the poor people (including children) who manufacture the things they sell, or their customers. Perhaps, if one is to charge someone with depraved indifference it should be the CEO of Walmart!

People kept crying about this guy all night? All I can say is "Wow." :headbang:

And CSW, for the last time, even if deadly force was illegal, the intent to use it wasn't there, and the people holding him had no reason to think being pinned to hot pavement would be deadly.

As for the person that quoted some amendments, whether they are applicable depends on whether you consider detaining a thief unreasonable.

the people holding him had no reason to think being pinned to hot pavement would be deadly.

complete nonsense. A black pavement in Texas in the summer gets insanely hot. I've seen an egg fry in seconds. They should have at least known that he would be seriously injured.

People kept crying about this guy all night? All I can say is "Wow." :headbang:

And CSW, for the last time, even if deadly force was illegal, the intent to use it wasn't there, and the people holding him had no reason to think being pinned to hot pavement would be deadly.

As for the person that quoted some amendments, whether they are applicable depends on whether you consider detaining a thief unreasonable.
And yet it was. And they continued to do it despite repeated pleas from him to call an ambulence. We call that conscious indifference to a person's health. It doesn't matter what they thought, they knew that he was most likely in serious pain, and they didn't care. That is a crime.

And yet it was. And they continued to do it despite repeated pleas from him to call an ambulence. We call that conscious indifference to a person's health. It doesn't matter what they thought, they knew that he was most likely in serious pain, and they didn't care. That is a crime.

But they were not indifferent to his pain, they were simply more worried about keeping him detained than figuring out if he was faking it or not.

But they were not indifferent to his pain, they were simply more worried about keeping him detained than figuring out if he was faking it or not.
Doesn't matter. A person's right to life overrules that of property. The burden is on the employees of walmart to ensure that this person doesn't die while being detained. They failed in that burden (Duty: to ensure the safety of those in their custody. Breach: Failure to do so with a careless and conscious disregard for his health). At the very least, this is a classic case of negligent homicide.

Doesn't matter. A person's right to life overrules that of property. The burden is on the employees of walmart to ensure that this person doesn't die while being detained. They failed in that burden (Duty: to ensure the safety of those in their custody. Breach: Failure to do so with a careless and conscious disregard for his health). At the very least, this is a classic case of negligent homicide.

The burden on the Walmart employees is also to make sure a potentially violent criminal doesn't escape custody. That overrides making sure a violent criminal is comfortable.

The burden on the Walmart employees is also to make sure a potentially violent criminal doesn't escape custody. That overrides making sure a violent criminal is comfortable.
Absolutely not. The burden, duty, is on the walmart employees to ensure the safety of everyone. They breached that duty. Do kindly learn some law and come back.

Doesn't matter. A person's right to life overrules that of property. The burden is on the employees of walmart to ensure that this person doesn't die while being detained. They failed in that burden (Duty: to ensure the safety of those in their custody. Breach: Failure to do so with a careless and conscious disregard for his health). At the very least, this is a classic case of negligent homicide.The burden is on the Police to ensure that any suspect doesn't die while being detained.
If they Fail...at the very least, its a classic case of negligent homicide.

isnt it?

...a potentially violent criminal...Give me a break.

A man refusing to obey your orders...and running away from you...Is NOT automatically "a potentially violent criminal"

The burden is on the Police to ensure that any suspect doesn't die while being detained.
If they Fail...at the very least, its a classic case of negligent homicide.

isnt it?
Within reason. For example, if someone is pointing a gun at your head, and has already killed someone else, deadly force is generally considered to be a good idea, though it's preferred that you try and talk them down first. Generally, protection of life comes first. For example, high speed car chases. Police officers often get into those, and they often have to break off. Why? Because it's simply too dangerous, and if they started to chase a person going 100 mph the wrong way down a highway, someone is going to be killed. It's better to let a person get away with grand-theft auto and hope that you can pick him up later then to have a 30 car pileup on I-95 with 10 people dead.

Give me a break.

A man refusing to obey your orders...and running away from you...Is NOT automatically "a potentially violent criminal"umm... in this case, he was "armed" didn't several witnesses say he had a [BB] Gun and ammo [BB's]



Hey those can hurt you know. :D

umm... in this case, he was "armed" didn't several witnesses say he had a [BB] Gun and ammo [BB's] true!!

I forgot about the Gun.

I retract my previous statement.

The burden is on the Police to ensure that any suspect doesn't die while being detained.
If they Fail...at the very least, its a classic case of negligent homicide.

isnt it?
Not necessarily. But if they are negligent, then they do become liable. If the same thing had happened as happened here, then the police would be guilty. Whether or not they would be charged is another matter. but Police have a little leeway because they have a responsibility to arrest criminals. These guys didn't.

And the guy who called this guy "potentially violent" has to be a joker. The image that people have of this guy breaking free of 5 guards with his hands cuffed behind his back and making a daring escape to go on a shoplifting/murder spree is utterly asburd.

true!!

I forgot about the Gun.

I retract my previous statement.
God, he might get off a [bb] bullet, then have to pump for the next hour or so to get off the next [bb] bullet. He could put someone's eye out!


While handcuffed! With his hands behind his back!


I agree, we really should send random criminals to the olympics, we'd do much better, seeing as they all turn into some sort of superhero following the commission of a crime.

God, he might get off a [bb] bullet, then have to pump for the next hour or so to get off the next [bb] bullet. He could put someone's eye out!What kind of BB gun do you own that forces you to pump for an hour?


and shooting a BB is only one way to use the rifle,

it can also be a very big club.

... Police have a little leeway because they have a responsibility to arrest criminals. These guys didn't.
Shoplifting is Criminal...

and they are only Suspects...

While handcuffed! With his hands behind his back!


I agree, we really should send random criminals to the olympics, we'd do much better, seeing as they all turn into some sort of superhero following the commission of a crime.OK, I apologize, I didn't read where he was running away from the employees WHILE HANDCUFFED! and he still broke away multiple times and managed to do PUSH-UPs with three or four employees on him while his hands were HANDCUFFED BEHIND HIM.

hey, that's sounds like a very dangerous man indeed.

What kind of BB gun do you own that forces you to pump for an hour?


and shooting a BB is only one way to use the rifle,

it can also be a very big club.
With your hands behind your back!


Somehow I don't think the BB gun is even in his hands, seeing as he's been wrestled to the ground some few yards back. He most likely dropped it when he was stopped during the first little scuffle.

OK, I apologize, I didn't read where he was running away from the employees WHILE HANDCUFFED! and he still broke away multiple times and managed to do PUSH-UPs while his hands were HANDCUFFED BEHIND HIM.

hey, that's sounds like a very dangerous man indeed.
Yes, because we all know that you can accuratly load, pump up and fire a bb gun while being chased and fought with by security guards. And take the gun out of it's case. And remove that stupid plastic crap that's around BB ammo. In less then a minute. While being fought with.


More to the point, have you ever fired a BB gun?


Olympics, I say.

Shoplifting is Criminal...

and they are only Suspects...
Yeah, but those guys aren't police, no matter what they think.

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.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3301862The title of this thread is idiotic. Wal-mart murdered no one.

With your hands behind your back!


Somehow I don't think the BB gun is even in his hands, seeing as he's been wrestled to the ground some few yards back. He most likely dropped it when he was stopped during the first little scuffle.So he was Handcuffed, then he broke away and ran, got stopped once or twice more, then tackled to the ground, proceeded to lift himself off of the hot blacktop in a push up type fashion, (While his hands were cuffed behind him).

I'll admit he probably dropped what he was taking, but still, that's really some feat!

you know, his hands were probably handcuffed after he passed out. Now the real question is, Why were normal employees carrying handcuffs. Someone has some interesting fetishes there.

Unless it IS store policy for employees to aprehend criminals and cuff em.

So he was Handcuffed, then he broke away and ran, got stopped once or twice more, then tackled to the ground, proceeded to lift himself off of the hot blacktop in a push up type fashion, (While his hands were cuffed behind him).

I'll admit he probably dropped what he was taking, but still, that's really some feat!

you know, his hands were probably handcuffed after he passed out. Now the real question is, Why were normal employees carrying handcuffs. Someone has some interesting fetishes there.

Unless it IS store policy for employees to aprehend criminals and cuff em.
Oh, so then you agree that he wasn't a dangerous criminal after his hands were handcuffed? Well then, we have no argument. We're referring to what happened a bit later, why he couldn't be moved.

The title of this thread is idiotic. Wal-mart murdered no one.
Fine, walmart committed reckless homicide. Good?


You are aware that employers are held responsible for actions taken by their employees in the course of their duties?

Yes, because we all know that you can accuratly load, pump up and fire a bb gun while being chased and fought with by security guards. And take the gun out of it's case. And remove that stupid plastic crap that's around BB ammo. In less then a minute. While being fought with.


More to the point, have you ever fired a BB gun?


Olympics, I say.Yes. several models, have you?
and you really don't need to load it, just grab it and swing like a baseball bat, it can still do damage you know.

Yes. several models, have you?
and you really don't need to load it, just grab it and swing like a baseball bat, it can still do damage you know.
Very inaccurate. That's while lying prone, with all the time in the world.

In it's case, with at least three or four sercurity guards around you? I don't think much swinging will be going on.

Fine, walmart committed reckless homicide. Good?

No, equally idiotic. Wal-mart commited no crime here.

Oh, so then you agree that he wasn't a dangerous criminal after his hands were handcuffed? Well then, we have no argument. We're referring to what happened a bit later, why he couldn't be moved.
ok, so when was his hands cuffed then. by your agruments, he was cuffed before he ran.

I say he was cuffed after he was tackled and passed out/died.

Given the eyewitness accounts, which seems more likely.

The point is, they pushed this guy down by the neck onto burning hot pavement. They had no reason to think he was dangerous. He wasn't running from the police, he was running from some guys who had no authority to detain him. They ignored him and others who told them that he couldn't breathe and that they should call an ambulance. They weren't police. If the guy had gotten away, what would have been the big deal. They had a description and a license plate. The stuff he had was dropped. Now he's dead. I don't see how someone can look at this and say "just fine".

No, equally idiotic. Wal-mart commited no crime here.
Wal-mart didn't, but their employees did.

ok, so when was his hands cuffed then. by your agruments, he was cuffed before he ran.

I say he was cuffed after he was tackled and passed out/died.

Given the eyewitness accounts, which seems more likely.
Nope, I agree that he wasn't cuffed before he ran. We're talking about how you can consider someone who is handcuffed, on the ground, and surrounded by 35 people a 'dangerous criminal', unable to be moved to a safer location.


Oh, and he's also having a heart attack.

No, equally idiotic. Wal-mart commited no crime here.
Respondeat superior: "let the master respond."


An employer is held responsible for the actions of its employees committed in the line of duty.

Respondeat superior: "let the master respond."


An employer is held responsible for the actions of its employees committed in the line of duty.
So the employees of Wal-mart accidentally killed a criminal. So then Wal-Mart is responsible. That is a long way from "Wal-Mart Murders Customer", which is idiotic garbage meant to inflame, and is irresponsible.

Very inaccurate. That's while lying prone, with all the time in the world.

In it's case, with at least three or four sercurity guards around you? I don't think much swinging will be going on.Sorry, but I'm starting to think you're trolling.

your arguments keeps changing the situation that was reported.

according to you: what was reported
he was cuffed before he started running.
the Emergency crews found him handcuffed and all eyewitness never mentioned that Drivers was running while he was cuffed. infact, they do state that his shirt was torn off, hard to do with your hands cuffed.

he was now apprehended by SECURITY GUARDS.
It was reported that they were employees

you're ignoring the fact that that he managed to get away several times (while cuffed by your arguments.)
he did escape several times, but again, no mention of handcuffs untill emergency crew arrived.

that the employees now turned security guards used Deady Force purposely and with full intent on killing Drivers.
the Employees restrained Drivers and his death appears to be an accident.


am I the only one seeing the changes from what the artical states and what is now being argued?

So the employees of Wal-mart accidentally killed a criminal. So then Wal-Mart is responsible. That is a long way from "Wal-Mart Murders Customer", which is idiotic garbage meant to inflame, and is irresponsible.
They killed a customer. The way so many of you refuse to properly read and absorb a simple news article is breath-taking in it's scope. Hats off to your inability to process data.

Well whoes ever responsible. It shouldn't have happened. Also, I believe the employee's can be held responsible, because they have a responsibility for the safety and welfare of customers just as much as managers do. All of them can be nailed into prison.

Though it was great to hear that the viewing public did soooo much to help the man who was clearly in pain. "Lets just watch and shout!"... "Yeah great idea!". Actually, putting it in that prepespective, even the passers by can be sent to prison. They have a legal responsibility to report a crime when they see one being committed... and... I like how the Ambulance was called after the man stopped moving, not while he was struggling too. Also... the Ambulance took what 2 minutes to arrive. The Police took 9 minutes wasn't it????

This story is mad. Walmart didn't murder a customer by the way. Aparently he didn't purchase the items did he? He was a theif. Wow. I'm going to stop now. This story has some issues!!! In every respect!

Yeah, but those guys aren't police, no matter what they think.The Police and Security Agencies should have the same responsibilities regarding human life of any people running away from them.

Sorry, but I'm starting to think you're trolling.

your arguments keeps changing the situation that was reported.

according to you: what was reported
he was cuffed before he started running.
the Emergency crews found him handcuffed and all eyewitness never mentioned that Drivers was running while he was cuffed. infact, they do state that his shirt was torn off, hard to do with your hands cuffed.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that a person who is handcuffed, on the ground, with no weapons near by, surrounded by 35 people, is not a threat.


he was now apprehended by SECURITY GUARDS.
It was reported that they were employees

Rent-a-cops aren't employees now? Besides, you're quibbling over semantics. I could have just as easily said employees with no change in the meaning of my sentance.

you're ignoring the fact that that he managed to get away several times (while cuffed by your arguments.)
he did escape several times, but again, no mention of handcuffs untill emergency crew arrived.

I never said that.

that the employees now turned security guards used Deady Force purposely and with full intent on killing Drivers.
the Employees restrained Drivers and his death appears to be an accident.

I never said that they intentionally used deadly force. What I did say is that, through conscious negligence they killed a man. That is illegal.


am I the only one seeing the changes from what the artical states and what is now being argued?
Yes.

Nope, I agree that he wasn't cuffed before he ran. We're talking about how you can consider someone who is handcuffed, on the ground, and surrounded by 35 people a 'dangerous criminal', unable to be moved to a safer location.


Oh, and he's also having a heart attack.again, when was he cuffed?

I say after he stopped struggling and was either unconscience or dead. after all, witnesses said he tried to lift himself up while several people where on him. a testimony of strength. After he was cuffed, was when the employees let up and realized he wasn't breathing. thus before they placed the cuffs on him, he was trying to escape.

and if it was a Heart Attack, then the blame cannot be put on the employees for their intention was to restrain, not kill.

The point of this from the beginning was to troll. The title is inflamatory, the argument has been very inconsistent.

They killed a customer. The way so many of you refuse to properly read and absorb a simple news article is breath-taking in it's scope. Hats off to your inability to process data.
They didn't kill a customer, they killed a criminal on accident. A criminal who several times refused to stop endangering people. Your inability to read and abosorb a simple news article is not surprising, based on your need to flame people when they disagree with your illogic. Hats off to your grammer school level discourse.

again, when was he cuffed?

After being forced to the ground with a knee to his back. That's generally when the police handcuff someone, no?

I say after he stopped struggling and was either unconscience or dead. after all, witnesses said he tried to lift himself up while several people where on him. a testimony of strength. After he was cuffed, was when the employees let up and realized he wasn't breathing. thus before they placed the cuffs on him, he was trying to escape.

Conjecture, and remember that it took 7 minutes between the time he was 'under control' (I assume handcuffed) and for them to realize he was dead. Your explanation doesn't fit. He was under control for a long time before they realized he was dead.

and if it was a Heart Attack, then the blame cannot be put on the employees for their intention was to restrain, not kill.
They refused to call for help despite repeated requests to do so. They consciously ignored the well being of a fellow human being. That's reckless homicide. Also, they have a duty to ensure the well being of any human being that is in their custody. They failed in that as well, as they refused to give any help, nor did they move the person to a better place, nor did they call for an EMS unit.

The point of this from the beginning was to troll. The title is inflamatory, the argument has been very inconsistent.
Nope. It's a correct title. Let's see.


Walmart. Yep, walmart was the employer.


Murder. mur·der Audio pronunciation of "murder" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another.


Yep, unlawful killing of one human by another involved here. Reckless homicide or perhaps involuntary manslaughter is better, but it doesn't have the same ring.

Customer. His status as a customer isn't in doubt. He has yet to be found guilty of shoplifting, so he isn't a criminal.


Nope, the title is correct, but please, submit this to moderation if you feel it is not.

Nope. It's a correct title. Let's see.


Walmart. Yep, walmart was the employer.

Yet, walmart itself did not murder anyone. Get a clue.

Murder. mur·der Audio pronunciation of "murder" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another.


Yep, unlawful killing of one human by another involved here. Reckless homicide or perhaps involuntary manslaughter is better, but it doesn't have the same ring.
You are talking about mansluahgter, this was not murder.

Customer. His status as a customer isn't in doubt. He has yet to be found guilty of shoplifting, so he isn't a criminal.
His status as a customer is most definitly in doubt, as is your inability to read.

Nope, the title is correct, but please, submit this to moderation if you feel it is not.The title is not correct, it is ignorant, and inflamatory. You couldn't buy a clue if they were on sale.

Yet, walmart itself did not murder anyone. Get a clue.

Learn some law buddy. Respondeat Superior.

You are talking about mansluahger, this was not murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Manslaughter is murder. Manslaughter is not first degree murder, however. You're confusing first/second degree murder with the meaning of the word murder.

His status as a customer is most definitly in doubt, as is your inability to read.

Oh, so he's been convicted of a crime? As far as I can see he was just another shopper who was falsely accused of shoplifting. That's all that he is under the eyes of the law.

THe title is not correct, ignorant, and inflamatory. You couldn't buy a clue if they were on sale.
Oh, so it isn't ignorant and inflamtory? Thanks.


But feel free to let the moderators look at it.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that a person who is handcuffed, on the ground, with no weapons near by, surrounded by 35 people, is not a threat.Your earlier arguments was that he was cuffed before he was tackled and finally forced to the ground and thus could not use the rifle as a weapon, even as a club.
referre to post
165 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439537&postcount=165)
177 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439592&postcount=177)
271 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9441683&postcount=271), 275 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9441715&postcount=275),

That he actually fought back, thus proving he is dangerous. 276 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9441724&postcount=276)


Rent-a-cops aren't employees now? Besides, you're quibbling over semantics. I could have just as easily said employees with no change in the meaning of my sentance. Rent-a-cops are sub-contracted. they would wear different uniforms because they are not employed by the contracting company (walmart in this case) but by a security firm. so they wouldn't wearing Walmart uniforms but security uniforms (also to stand out incase customers need security assistance.) thus the eyewitnesses would state guards or security, not employees.

I never said that they intentionally used deadly force. What I did say is that, through conscious negligence they killed a man. That is illegal. to consencly neglect for no other plausible reason than to inflict a fatal situation is use of deadly force.

equating what the employee's did as deadly force:
inference that deadly force was used in post 160 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439489&postcount=160)
184 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439641&postcount=184)
204 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439742&postcount=204)

remember, by your accounts, he was cuffed before he was finally tacked on the blacktop. yet he still did a push-up type move with several people on him. bellying his strenth and the fact that HE WASN'T CUFFED at that point. so when the rug was brought out, they couldn't be sure they could hold him without him escaping. it was only after he was cuffed (marked by the fact that they were getting off of him) that they realized he wasn't breathing.

and 35 people does not equate 35 employees, they were most likely shoppers who would probably not try to restrain him should he run, but would just watch and get out of the way, maybe 5 people of that crowd would try to restrain him, but probably not.

After being forced to the ground with a knee to his back. That's generally when the police handcuff someone, no?which was the last time they tackled him and had 5-7 guys on him... the point that he attempted to get up by doing "Pushups" with 5-7 guys on him... at that point... not running when you originally said.

Conjecture, and remember that it took 7 minutes between the time he was 'under control' (I assume handcuffed) and for them to realize he was dead. Your explanation doesn't fit. He was under control for a long time before they realized he was dead.I will admit that under control is a dubious term. It can also admit when he couldn't run. like with all those people on him. doesn't state when the cuffs were on. and with 6-8 people in a knot, it is hard to tell when the exact time of death would be noticed by someone.

They refused to call for help despite repeated requests to do so. They consciously ignored the well being of a fellow human being. That's reckless homicide. Also, they have a duty to ensure the well being of any human being that is in their custody. They failed in that as well, as they refused to give any help, nor did they move the person to a better place, nor did they call for an EMS unit.then all those customers who heard those pleas are also guilty for any of them could've called for emergency services, but they stood by and watched.

Oh, so he's been convicted of a crime? As far as I can see he was just another shopper who was falsely accused of shoplifting. That's all that he is under the eyes of the law.
and under those same eyes of the law, the employees are also innocent until the investigation is done. so instead of trying to convict them and Walmart, why not just drop it until the investigation is over.

Your earlier arguments was that he was cuffed before he was tackled and finally forced to the ground and thus could not use the rifle as a weapon, even as a club.
referre to post
165 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439537&postcount=165)

Referring to afterwards, when he said that he couldn't be moved, with his face to the asphalt. Please.

177 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439592&postcount=177)

ibid.

271 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9441683&postcount=271)

Still referring to the situation in which, if he somehow managed to get free of some 35 people, gained his gun, he couldn't do anything with it.
275 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9441715&postcount=275),

ibid.

That he actually fought back, thus proving he is dangerous. 276 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9441724&postcount=276)

ibid.

Rent-a-cops are sub-contracted. they would wear different uniforms because they are not employed by the contracting company (walmart in this case) but by a security firm. so they wouldn't wearing Walmart uniforms but security uniforms (also to stand out incase customers need security assistance.) thus the eyewitnesses would state guards or security, not employees.

So quibbling. Employee could be substituted and no change would be made to my argument.

to consencly neglect for no other plausible reason than to inflict a fatal situation is use of deadly force.

No, it isn't. Neglect is not force.

equating what the employee's did as deadly force:
inference that deadly force was used in post 160 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439489&postcount=160)
184 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439641&postcount=184)
204 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439742&postcount=204)

Wrong on all counts. What I'm saying is that the employees showed a conscious disregard for that man's health. That is a crime. Reckless homicide.

remember, by your accounts, he was cuffed before he was finally tacked on the blacktop. yet he still did a push-up type move with several people on him. bellying his strenth and the fact that HE WASN'T CUFFED at that point. so when the rug was brought out, they couldn't be sure they could hold him without him escaping. it was only after he was cuffed (marked by the fact that they were getting off of him) that they realized he wasn't breathing.

No. They had him under control for a full 7 minutes before they realized he was dead. Read the article. I also never said that he was handcuffed before. What I said was that after being pushed into the ground, he was then handcuffed, and able to be safely moved. The employees did nothing of the sort. That is conscious indifference.


and 35 people does not equate 35 employees, they were most likely shoppers who would probably not try to restrain him should he run, but would just watch and get out of the way, maybe 5 people of that crowd would try to restrain him, but probably not.
He's surrrounded by people, I think that they would have stopped him. So you've got, what, 10 people chasing after a man who is handcuffed and having a cardiac arrest? Please, he wasn't going anywhere.

which was the last time they tackled him and had 5-7 guys on him... the point that he attempted to get up by doing "Pushups" with 5-7 guys on him... at that point... not running when you originally said.

Running was referring to if he somehow got loose while they were moving him to a safer area.

I will admit that under control is a dubious term. It can also admit when he couldn't run. like with all those people on him. doesn't state when the cuffs were on. and with 6-8 people in a knot, it is hard to tell when the exact time of death would be noticed by someone.

They realized he was dead 7 minutes into the incident, after he was under control. Are you seriously claiming that no one put handcuffs on him until he has been shoved into the hot asphalt for 7 minutes, a knee in his back and many arms and such forcing his face into the ground, at which time they realized he's dead, but decided he might be faking it and put handcuffs on him anyway?

then all those customers who heard those pleas are also guilty for any of them could've called for emergency services, but they stood by and watched.
So? The people who have him in custody have a duty to ensure the safety of those that they have in custody.

Running was referring to if he somehow got loose while they were moving him to a safer area. so you're admitting he could've gotten loose while moving him to a safer area. an argument against your claim of flagrant neglect. they feared him escaping.

They realized he was dead 7 minutes into the incident, after he was under control. Are you seriously claiming that no one put handcuffs on him until he has been shoved into the hot asphalt for 7 minutes, a knee in his back and many arms and such forcing his face into the ground, at which time they realized he's dead, but decided he might be faking it and put handcuffs on him anyway? he was struggling, even attempted to get up, not the signs of a dead man. and with his attempt to get up, his arms were not yet restrained by people nor by handcuffs. thus he was shoved onto the ground, was struggling to get up and the cuffs were finally put on, then they realized he wasn't breathing.

Now if the fact that he had a heart attack is true, he would be forcibly twitching, undergoing a seisure, which in that situation could easily be mistaken during his escape attempt and thus overlooked. In which case, again, the I would leave it up to the jury

So? The people who have him in custody have a duty to ensure the safety of those that they have in custody.the people who have him in custody were trying to make sure he wasn't injured. if such flagerent disreguard for his well being was as you say, then they would've hit him several times and render him immobile in much harsher and less friendly methods than they used. the use of so many people means they were restraining him by pressure or weight not by fighting force.

A criminal who several times refused to stop endangering people. .
What?! How was he endangering people? He shoplifted a few peices of merchandise. This is just ridiculous.

The Police and Security Agencies should have the same responsibilities regarding human life of any people running away from them.
You are dead wrong here. I don't want some pimply 19 year old kid to have the "responsibility" to shoot me if I run from him. And in any case, police in this situation would have been culpable as well. They wouldn't be allowed to let him go, but they wouldn't be allowed to kill him and if they did, they should and would be held responsible.

so you're admitting he could've gotten loose while moving him to a safer area. an argument against your claim that they ignored his pleas for fear of him escaping.
Yes, becasue a man who is having a cardiac arrest, surrounded by 35 people and handcuffed is extremely likely to make a run for it, grab his gun, kill someone, and escape.

he was struggling, even attempted to get up, not the signs of a dead man. and with his attempt to get up, his arms were not yet restrained by people nor by handcuffs. thus he was shoved onto the ground, was struggling to get up and the cuffs were finally put on, then they realized he wasn't breathing.

Listen to what the article said. "He was under control for 9 minutes until the EMS showed up". The EMS was called 7 minutes after he was 'under control'. I don't know about you, but being handcuffed sounds like under control to me.

Now if the fact that he had a heart attack is true, he would be forcibly twitching, undergoing a seisure, which in that situation could easily be mistaken for escape attempt and thus overlooked. In which case, again, the I would leave it up to the jury

Despite pleaing to be taken to a hospital?

the people who have him in custody were trying to make sure he wasn't injured. if such flagerent disreguard for his well being was as you say, then they would've hit him several times and render him immobile in much harsher and less friendly methods than they used. the use of so many people means they were restraining him by pressure or weight not by fighting force.
They still refused to call an ambulence, which is the conscious disregard. If someone asks for an EMS unit, you call for one, I don't give a damn the situation.

Referring to afterwards, when he said that he couldn't be moved, with his face to the asphalt. Please. so before he was restrained, then you admit that he could've posed a threat and the fact that he was running is completely ignored by you. It was stated that he escaped several TIMES. that means he was caught, then got loose, then got caught again, and got loose... He even lost his shirt during that time.


Still referring to the situation in which, if he somehow managed to get free of some 35 people, gained his gun, he couldn't do anything with it.but again you are only concentrating on the end. not the chase before that. you are completely ignoring everything else that would prove you wrong.


So quibbling. Employee could be substituted and no change would be made to my argument.there is a difference, Security Guards are trained differently than Cashiers. they also have different jobs to do. By changing Employee and Security guard is the same as changing BB gun with Hunting Rifle.

Wrong on all counts. What I'm saying is that the employees showed a conscious disregard for that man's health. That is a crime. Reckless homicide.but you stated yourself that he could've escaped again. you're ignoring the fact that he got away from employees several times before.

No. They had him under control for a full 7 minutes before they realized he was dead. Read the article. I also never said that he was handcuffed before. What I said was that after being pushed into the ground, he was then handcuffed, and able to be safely moved. The employees did nothing of the sort. That is conscious indifference. Read it again, the last tackle was still a struggle until the end.


He's surrrounded by people, I think that they would have stopped him. So you've got, what, 10 people chasing after a man who is handcuffed and having a cardiac arrest? Please, he wasn't going anywhere.he got away several times before, what proof do you have that he wouldn't have gotten away again. you state that the employees have a responsibility to their customers, so they have someone who was trying to get away down on the ground and the area is now surrounded by guess what... CUSTOMERS. what makes you think that someone trying to get away with what might be theift has more rights than the men, women and children who are going there to legally shop?

Can someone explain what evidence they are using to decide that this man was a "threat", and not just a guy who didn't want to go to jail?

so before he was restrained, then you admit that he could've posed a threat and the fact that he was running is completely ignored by you. It was stated that he escaped several TIMES. that means he was caught, then got loose, then got caught again, and got loose... He even lost his shirt during that time.


but again you are only concentrating on the end. not the chase before that. you are completely ignoring everything else that would prove you wrong.


there is a difference, Security Guards are trained differently than Cashiers. they also have different jobs to do. By changing Employee and Security guard is the same as changing BB gun with Hunting Rifle.

but you stated yourself that he could've escaped again. you're ignoring the fact that he got away from employees several times before.

Read it again, the last tackle was still a struggle until the end.


he got away several times before, what proof do you have that he wouldn't have gotten away again. you state that the employees have a responsibility to their customers, so they have someone who was trying to get away down on the ground and the area is now surrounded by guess what... CUSTOMERS. what makes you think that someone trying to get away with what might be theift has more rights than the men, women and children who are going there to legally shop?
It doesn't matter that he had gotten away several times before, keeping him there in a position that caused his death is not allowed. It was inherantly dangerous. Do you contend that it is better to let a person die then give up 10$ worth of items, that you'd most likely get back anyway because this is all on tape?

It doesn't matter that he had gotten away several times before, keeping him there in a position that caused his death is not allowed. It was inherantly dangerous. Do you contend that it is better to let a person die then give up 10$ worth of items, that you'd most likely get back anyway because this is all on tape?
I have to doubt that by the time he was face down on the pavement, he was still had the stuff he allegedly shoplifted. But these guys wouldn't have gotten the kudos from their boss for catching the guy, or gotten their "lawman" jollies for the day.

Experts discourage using force in shoplifting cases
The tactics used on suspect who died puts focus on Wal-Mart's policy
By ROBERT CROWE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Security experts discourage the aggressive tactics used by Wal-Mart employees who struggled with a suspected thief who later died.

"Most retailers have a policy of not going into a chase or getting into a combative fight with someone," said Joseph LaRocca, vice president of loss prevention for the National Retail Federation.

Wal-Mart's corporate office on Tuesday refused to discuss its procedures for detaining and using force against shoplifting suspects in wake of the death of Stacy Clay Driver, 30, on Sunday.

Driver, of Cleveland, was chased by employees after he left the store in the 6600 block of FM 1960 East with items they said he stole. Four employees in the Atascocita Wal-Mart wrestled Driver — who was shirtless at the time — to the ground and struggled with him on the hot pavement for 10 to 30 minutes, witnesses said. He stopped breathing and later died at a Humble hospital.

"Most retailers' policies would say that if a person becomes combative, let them go," LaRocca added. "You can tell police, and let the police handle the investigation and follow up."

LaRocca said he is not familiar with Wal-Mart's shoplifting policies, but the chain has a large "loss-prevention" department dedicated to reducing profit "shrinkage" by shoplifters and each Wal-Mart store has loss-prevention employees who monitor and confront suspects.

Harris County sheriff's Lt. John Martin said employees struggled with Driver for some time before they could get him under control in handcuffs. While in handcuffs, he continued to struggle until he stopped breathing, witnesses said.

The Harris County Medical Examiner's Office has not released an autopsy report yet. Martin said the autopsy is complete, but coroners are still awaiting the results of toxicology tests.

Sticker switch alleged
Store managers told investigators that Driver entered the store with items marked with a stickers showing he had purchased them, but then he walked into a restroom and placed the stickers on different items — a BB gun, diapers, sunglasses and a pack of BBs — before walking out.

When witness Charles Portz saw the employees struggling with Driver on the parking lot pavement, he did not see any of the alleged stolen items but the sunglasses.

"That's what got my attention, the employee kicked him in the back of the leg, knocked him off balance then they just threw him down to ground," Portz said.

LaRocca said that most shoplifting suspects, when confronted by store employees, will not flee or become combative. In most cases, suspects will turn over merchandise and wait for police.

Christi Gallagher, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, declined repeated requests to discuss the retail chain's techniques for apprehending and detaining suspected shoplifters or whether it permits use of force against suspects. "We don't speak publicly about our security measures," she said.

Ralph Witherspoon, president of Witherspoon Security Consulting in Cleveland, Ohio, said there should be less of an incentive to pursue and struggle with suspects who do not take merchandise with them.

The International Association of Professional Security Consultants recommends that retail security personnel do not strike, tackle, sit on a suspect, or engage in any contact that might cause physical injury.

Danger of asphyxia
"No merchandise is of such value as to justify physical injury to a suspect," the association states in its "Best Practices" section of its Web site.

Witherspoon always informs his clients that struggling with combative suspects can lead to death by "positional asphyxiation."

"This can happen when someone is on top of a suspect who's face-down with hands handcuffed behind their back," he said. "This prevents them from breathing, and they suffocate."

For the past decade, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has warned against the dangers of positional asphyxia, and many police departments have re-evaluated use-of-force procedures because some suspects have died in struggles.

Witherspoon said the issue is especially acute among retail loss-prevention personnel because they don't have the same training as police officers.

Texas law allows store employees to make a citizen's arrest as long as they have cause to do so, said Chris McGoey, president of McGoey Security Consulting in California,

"You can use 'reasonable' force to recover merchandise or detain a person long enough to summon police," McGoey said. "As a rule of thumb, you don't want loss-prevention people tackling people and wrestling people onto the ground, and you certainly don't want them chasing people into parking lots."

He also is unfamiliar with Wal-Mart's policies, but he thinks the country's largest retailer would strictly prohibit chases and physical combat.

Going after shoplifters
The company, however, is widely known for its aggressive prosecution of shoplifters, said Sgt. Jeff Stauber of the Sheriff's Department burglary and theft division.

Its aggressiveness also has led to a number of civil lawsuits for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

LaRocca said retailers lose just more than $30 billion annually to "shrinkage," which includes shoplifting and lost products. A typical store loses about 1.5 percent of its profits as a result of shrinkage, he said.

Yes, becasue a man who is having a cardiac arrest, surrounded by 35 people and handcuffed is extremely likely to make a run for it, grab his gun, kill someone, and escape. you're adding information that the employees could not have known. they didn't know he was in cardiac arrest, (hard to belive when he is coherent and trying to escape... or are you talking about the last couple minutes when they realize he was dead.) they wouldn't endanger the customers whom you value less then the possible criminal they were holding.

Listen to what the article said. "He was under control for 9 minutes until the EMS showed up". The EMS was called 7 minutes after he was 'under control'. I don't know about you, but being handcuffed sounds like under control to me. and 'under control' only means being handcuffed. not caught, not "no longer running" but handcuffed and secure... Man you should work for Webster then.


They still refused to call an ambulence, which is the conscious disregard. If someone asks for an EMS unit, you call for one, I don't give a damn the situation.where did it state that they said, "No we are not calling an EMS unit?" or anything like that. please referre me to that portion of the article.

Can someone explain what evidence they are using to decide that this man was a "threat", and not just a guy who didn't want to go to jail?
There isn't any. There is no proof that he actually stole either, it is just an alledged happening. If he was doing what they said he was doing, that would have been excessively easy to cross-check for proof. There is no proof to the contrary the idea that he thought he was going to be jumped by a bunch of thugs and that is why he ran away. You don't need a hunting party to confront a man about stealing

It doesn't matter that he had gotten away several times before, keeping him there in a position that caused his death is not allowed. It was inherantly dangerous. Do you contend that it is better to let a person die then give up 10$ worth of items, that you'd most likely get back anyway because this is all on tape?so you would encourage shoplifting because even with cameras, some shoplifters do get away.

you're adding information that the employees could not have known. they didn't know he was in cardiac arrest, (hard to belive when he is coherent and trying to escape... or are you talking about the last couple minutes when they realize he was dead.) they wouldn't endanger the customers whom you value less then the possible criminal they were holding.

When someone is asking for an ambulence to be called, you don't dick around.

and 'under control' only means being handcuffed. not caught, not "no longer running" but handcuffed and secure... Man you should work for Webster then.

From a related article about this "Harris County sheriff's Lt. John Martin said employees struggled with Driver for some time before they could get him under control in handcuffs. While in handcuffs, he continued to struggle until he stopped breathing, witnesses said."


where did it state that they said, "No we are not calling an EMS unit?" or anything like that. please referre me to that portion of the article.
"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.

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."

so you would encourage shoplifting because even with cameras, some shoplifters do get away.
I don't encourage killing shoplifters.

I've taken a personal vow never to step into a Wal*Mart.

(Before I read this)

There isn't any. There is no proof that he actually stole either, it is just an alledged happening. If he was doing what they said he was doing, that would have been excessively easy to cross-check for proof. There is no proof to the contrary the idea that he thought he was going to be jumped by a bunch of thugs and that is why he ran away. You don't need a hunting party to confront a man about stealing
Well, I'm willing to assume he was shoplifting. He certainly wasn't acting like an innocent man. But that doesn't make him "dangerous" by any stretch.

Well, I'm willing to assume he was shoplifting. He certainly wasn't acting like an innocent man. But that doesn't make him "dangerous" by any stretch.
It certainly doesn't validate his death. Unless you're comfortable living under Police State conditions.

It certainly doesn't validate his death. Unless you're comfortable living under Police State conditions.
I wouldn't like a police state at all, but I would like a "security guard" state even less.

Bolding mine
Experts discourage using force in shoplifting cases
The tactics used on suspect who died puts focus on Wal-Mart's policy
By ROBERT CROWE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Security experts discourage the aggressive tactics used by Wal-Mart employees who struggled with a suspected thief who later died.

"Most retailers have a policy of not going into a chase or getting into a combative fight with someone," said Joseph LaRocca, vice president of loss prevention for the National Retail Federation.

Wal-Mart's corporate office on Tuesday refused to discuss its procedures for detaining and using force against shoplifting suspects in wake of the death of Stacy Clay Driver, 30, on Sunday.

Driver, of Cleveland, was chased by employees after he left the store in the 6600 block of FM 1960 East with items they said he stole. Four employees in the Atascocita Wal-Mart wrestled Driver — who was shirtless at the time — to the ground and struggled with him on the hot pavement for 10 to 30 minutes, witnesses said. He stopped breathing and later died at a Humble hospital.hmmm... not 7 minutes but 10 - 30 minutes of struggling. so things were not really under control as you say.

"Most retailers' policies would say that if a person becomes combative, let them go," LaRocca added. "You can tell police, and let the police handle the investigation and follow up."

LaRocca said he is not familiar with Wal-Mart's shoplifting policies, but the chain has a large "loss-prevention" department dedicated to reducing profit "shrinkage" by shoplifters and each Wal-Mart store has loss-prevention employees who monitor and confront suspects.so they confronted Drivers and drivers ran... sound very suspicious... oh yeah, that's right, you reserve the right to RUN when asked uncomfortable questions, even tho you are innocent.

Harris County sheriff's Lt. John Martin said employees struggled with Driver for some time before they could get him under control in handcuffs. While in handcuffs, he continued to struggle until he stopped breathing, witnesses said.again not under control even when handcuffed.

The Harris County Medical Examiner's Office has not released an autopsy report yet. Martin said the autopsy is complete, but coroners are still awaiting the results of toxicology tests.

Sticker switch alleged
Store managers told investigators that Driver entered the store with items marked with a stickers showing he had purchased them, but then he walked into a restroom and placed the stickers on different items — a BB gun, diapers, sunglasses and a pack of BBs — before walking out.hmmm.... sounds like shoplifting to me...

When witness Charles Portz saw the employees struggling with Driver on the parking lot pavement, he did not see any of the alleged stolen items but the sunglasses.

"That's what got my attention, the employee kicked him in the back of the leg, knocked him off balance then they just threw him down to ground," Portz said.

LaRocca said that most shoplifting suspects, when confronted by store employees, will not flee or become combative. In most cases, suspects will turn over merchandise and wait for police.sensable... why didn't Drivers try this I wonder?

Christi Gallagher, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, declined repeated requests to discuss the retail chain's techniques for apprehending and detaining suspected shoplifters or whether it permits use of force against suspects. "We don't speak publicly about our security measures," she said.

Ralph Witherspoon, president of Witherspoon Security Consulting in Cleveland, Ohio, said there should be less of an incentive to pursue and struggle with suspects who do not take merchandise with them.

The International Association of Professional Security Consultants recommends that retail security personnel do not strike, tackle, sit on a suspect, or engage in any contact that might cause physical injury.

Danger of asphyxia
"No merchandise is of such value as to justify physical injury to a suspect," the association states in its "Best Practices" section of its Web site.

Witherspoon always informs his clients that struggling with combative suspects can lead to death by "positional asphyxiation."

"This can happen when someone is on top of a suspect who's face-down with hands handcuffed behind their back," he said. "This prevents them from breathing, and they suffocate."

For the past decade, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has warned against the dangers of positional asphyxia, and many police departments have re-evaluated use-of-force procedures because some suspects have died in struggles.

Witherspoon said the issue is especially acute among retail loss-prevention personnel because they don't have the same training as police officers.

Texas law allows store employees to make a citizen's arrest as long as they have cause to do so, said Chris McGoey, president of McGoey Security Consulting in California,that's what they probably tried to do when Drivers ran.

"You can use 'reasonable' force to recover merchandise or detain a person long enough to summon police," McGoey said. "As a rule of thumb, you don't want loss-prevention people tackling people and wrestling people onto the ground, and you certainly don't want them chasing people into parking lots."

He also is unfamiliar with Wal-Mart's policies, but he thinks the country's largest retailer would strictly prohibit chases and physical combat.

Going after shoplifters
The company, however, is widely known for its aggressive prosecution of shoplifters, said Sgt. Jeff Stauber of the Sheriff's Department burglary and theft division.

Its aggressiveness also has led to a number of civil lawsuits for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

LaRocca said retailers lose just more than $30 billion annually to "shrinkage," which includes shoplifting and lost products. A typical store loses about 1.5 percent of its profits as a result of shrinkage, he said.that's quite alot... and do you know where they try to make up for those losses? by raising prices.

now, for the most part I do agree with this. It is not the employee's job to apprehend criminals. but is it their fault? I still say leave it to the investigation and trial (as you know there would be one.)

It certainly doesn't validate his death. Unless you're comfortable living under Police State conditions.I call his death accidental. not purposely imposed, not even in the realm of the employee's minds.

just a freak accident.

I don't encourage killing shoplifters.that's not answering the question.

Do you encourage shoplifting, even if there is a small chance you can get away with it?

so they confronted Drivers and drivers ran... sound very suspicious... oh yeah, that's right, you reserve the right to RUN when asked uncomfortable questions, even tho you are innocent.


You have the right to run from anyone but the police, whether innocent or guilty.

The Police and Security Agencies should have the same responsibilities regarding human life of any people running away from them.You are dead wrong here. I don't want some pimply 19 year old kid to have the "responsibility" to shoot me if I run from him. And in any case, police in this situation would have been culpable as well. They wouldn't be allowed to let him go, but they wouldn't be allowed to kill him and if they did, they should and would be held responsible.Interesting...

you start by saying "OD, You are dead Wrong"..and immediately after you agree all the way with what I was saying all along.

I can live with that :D

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

I hope some dumbass rent-a-cop gets fired and has their ass thrown in prison over this. Really. I'm not advocating shoplifting, but FFS...

You have the right to run from anyone but the police, whether innocent or guilty.If you are inside their store..and they have reasons to accuse you of shoplifting...I think they have a right to detain you.

The Police may have more rights than the Security agencies...but they don't have the right to kill you..just because you run away from them.

Interesting...

you start by saying "OD, You are dead Wrong"..and immediately after you agree all the way with what I was saying all along.

I can live with that :D
oh. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Have we been arguing against each other while we agreed the whole time? I get confused sometimes.

If you are inside their store..and they have reasons to accuse you of shoplifting...I think they have a right to detain you.

The Police may have more rights...than the Security agencies..but they don't have the right to kill you..just because you run away from them.

They have the right to use reasonable force to detain you, but you have to right to run off if you want.

oh. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Have we been arguing against each other while we agreed the whole time? I get confused sometimes.
No problemo...Im logging off anyways.

I think that Its a shame he died...and I hope not many peoples dies in arrest procedures...this year...or next.

I call his death accidental. not purposely imposed, not even in the realm of the employee's minds.

just a freak accident.
A totally avoidable freak accident...

A totally avoidable freak accident...
A totally avoidable freak accident that was not an accident by most standards.

A totally avoidable freak accident that was not an accident by most standards.
Indeed.

hmmm... not 7 minutes but 10 - 30 minutes of struggling. so things were not really under control as you say.

No, they struggled for 10-30 minutes, then they had 7 minutes in which he was under control, handcuffed, then he died.

It certainly doesn't validate his death. Unless you're comfortable living under Police State conditions.actually, while thinking about it,

The fact that he was chased and Accidentally killed doesn't make it a police state, even if the employees and walmart are found innocent in this case.

what makes it a police state is that Walmart, the employees and Drivers are being tried and convicted without all of the evidence being heard.

Here we are, determined to say who was right or wrong without knowing what happened. what we should be doing is waiting for the verdict then discussing that.

Am I supposed to be upset? Outraged? Disgusted?
This guy stole something he didn't need. He got exactly what was coming to him.

Am I supposed to be upset? Outraged? Disgusted?
This guy stole something he didn't need. He got exactly what was coming to him.
A bad ass action figure from show I forgot for you if you point out where it confirms he stole anything

No, they struggled for 10-30 minutes, then they had 7 minutes in which he was under control, handcuffed, then he died.and he continued to struggle all the way up to the point he died.

Am I supposed to be upset? Outraged? Disgusted?
This guy stole something he didn't need. He got exactly what was coming to him.
Death? Death is what people've got coming to them for supposedly shoplifting?

At least under Saudi Law, he'd have had his hand severed after receiving a trial.

and he continued to struggle all the way up to the point he died.
Because he couldn't breathe.

A totally avoidable freak accident that was not an accident by most standards.Agreed. Drivers shouldn't have run.

Because he couldn't breathe.can you tell the difference between struggling to escape and struggling escape undue pressure?

can you tell the difference between struggling to escape and struggling escape undue pressure?
Apparently the Wal-Mart employees couldn't.

Agreed. Drivers shouldn't have run.
You're being assinine - if indeed the security held him down onto hot tarmac, and refused to call an ambulance until it was too late, they are culpable. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Whether Drivers was running or resisting is totally irrelvant to that.

You're being assinine - if indeed the security held him down onto hot tarmac, and refused to call an ambulance until it was too late, they are culpable. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Whether Drivers was running or resisting is totally irrelvant to that.so are you saying that had Drivers not run, but stayed and perhaps attempted to straightened it out, he would still have been thrown to the ground, piled upon and handcuffed?

Apparently the Wal-Mart employees couldn't.true, but can CSW?

so are you saying that had Drivers not run, but stayed and perhaps attempted to straightened it out, he would still have been thrown to the ground, piled upon and handcuffed?
Again, irrelevant. You can run "what if" scenraios - the fact is a man died, quite possibly due to the incompetence and overzealousness of the security guards. Once he was handcuffed, an ambulance should have been called as soon as he started to complain of chest pain etc. You can't second guess these things, they should have called an ambulance, full stop.

Again, irrelevant. You can run "what if" scenraios - the fact is a man died, quite possibly due to the incompetence and overzealousness of the security guards. Once he was handcuffed, an ambulance should have been called as soon as he started to complain of chest pain etc. You can't second guess these things, they should have called an ambulance, full stop.Ahh, but this whole thing is one big "What If" because we are going by a news report. thus we don't know if all the facts are being reported and interrpeted accuratly. which is why the fact that people here are condemning walmart, their employees as well as Mr Drivers without burden of proof, as well as a trial is really not right. we are arguing without all the facts.

Death? Death is what people've got coming to them for supposedly shoplifting?

At least under Saudi Law, he'd have had his hand severed after receiving a trial.
Of course the employees should be punished if they are lying.
How much evidence do we have that suggests they actually were making this up?

Ahh, but this whole thing is one big "What If" because we are going by a news report. thus we don't know if all the facts are being reported and interrpeted accuratly. which is why the fact that people here are condemning walmart, their employees as well as Mr Drivers without burden of proof, as well as a trial is really not right. we are arguing without all the facts.
*shrugs* So we don't discuss anything on these boards without being first hand witnesses? :p

If it helps you, you can mentally add the caveat "According to available information: " to all of my sentences... :D

*shrugs* So we don't discuss anything on these boards without being first hand witnesses? :p

If it helps you, you can mentally add the caveat "According to available information: " to all of my sentences... :Dactually, I have been adding that mentally. :D

but the fact remains, we don't know the start, we only see the ending by people who never saw the whole situation.

so alot of speculation is happening. Did Drivers shoplift anything? possibly, were the employees out of line in aprehension. probably without knowing Wal marts anti-theift policies. perhaps they are told to use any means short of brute force to apprehend a shoplifter, (speculation due to the fact that someone there had handcuffs, either that or someone's date was ruined that night.)

there's too much to acurately say who's at fault. For all we know, he probably assaulted (pushed down) one of those elderly greeters we sometimes see at the door. the full story isn't known.

Of course the employees should be punished if they are lying.
How much evidence do we have that suggests they actually were making this up?
I have no idea. On the other hand, we have quite a few witnesses, as well as a dead body, to provide evidence that the employees killed a man in the store parking lot.

No need to make anything up. Except maybe funereal plans.

I'm being lazy today, so I think I'm probably just re-stating something that I hope has been said over and over again.

As much as I hate Wal*Mart, in this instance I think that this is indicative of loss prevention agents in general and not specific to Wal*Mart.

If you apply the Peter Principle to the notion of Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely you get the Loss Prevention Agent. People who drive jacked up big trucks and flashy sports cars or bully McDonalds employees have nothing on these 'pinkies.' This is not to say that I haven't met some lax and cool LP agents who have perspective about the job they perform, but I've met (and worked with) a lot that put even military fetishists to shame.

These wannabe cops have a worse complex than your average security guard because to them, they are 'undercover.' They are out of control bastards and stuff like this is bound to happen.

Unfortunately, when you mix one of these unstable cats with a gaffler-who, to be honest are not the best of the best either, you get this.

I don't have a solution, per se, just wanted to adjust what was happening. There are things to get on Wal*Mart's case about-but this is retail Loss Prevention in general.

you're adding information that the employees could not have known. they didn't know he was in cardiac arrest, (hard to belive when he is coherent and trying to escape... or are you talking about the last couple minutes when they realize he was dead.) they wouldn't endanger the customers whom you value less then the possible criminal they were holding.

and 'under control' only means being handcuffed. not caught, not "no longer running" but handcuffed and secure... Man you should work for Webster then.


where did it state that they said, "No we are not calling an EMS unit?" or anything like that. please referre me to that portion of the article.
Right Here:
"Finally the guy stopped moving" and the employees got off him, Portz said. "They wouldn't call an ambulance.

Good, serves that jackass right for shoplifting.

Good, serves that jackass right for shoplifting.
Oh yeah! And maybe we should be crucifying people for parking tickets, too...

:rolleyes:

...honestly, I despair at some of the immature attitudes here sometimes...

Good, serves that jackass right for shoplifting.
So should people be publicly flogged for cheating on their income tax?

I dearly hope I am not the only one disturbed by the amount of the support for the death penalty for shoplifters

I have no idea. On the other hand, we have quite a few witnesses, as well as a dead body, to provide evidence that the employees killed a man in the store parking lot.

No need to make anything up. Except maybe funereal plans.
So, launch an investigation. It'd be pretty simple to determine whether or not the guy would have actually stolen something.
Might as well check security tapes, too. If the employees have any brains, they'd have kept them.

I dearly hope I am not the only one disturbed by the amount of the support for the death penalty for shoplifters
Perhaps if every shoplifter is shot on sight, people will simply stop shoplifting?

Perhaps if every shoplifter is shot on sight, people will simply stop shoplifting?
So you believe that property is worth more then a human life?


The law disagrees with you.

Would this be truly murder? I would figure it would be a homicide

Perhaps if every shoplifter is shot on sight, people will simply stop shoplifting?

Perhaps if we started immediately killing criminals, outcasts and other people the perfect and sinless society deems to be undesirable, we can stop worrying about all these bothersome ethics and compassion. In fact, we can stop being humans and live amongst wild animals.

Perhaps if every shoplifter is shot on sight, people will simply stop shoplifting?
shot? put to death... for shoplifting... nah.

but there is some merit to spending the day in stocks.

I mean come on, going to jail may be harsh for some forms of shoplifting, but some public humiliation if found guilty for shoplifting... set up some old style stocks in a nice public and shaded areas...

Can't see too many repeat offenders.

and for those who are repeat offenders, then put em in jail.

Would this be truly murder? I would figure it would be a homicideonly if the employees entered the conflict with the desire to kill.

Manslaughter maybe, but I would rather a judge/jury figure that one out.

only if the employees entered the conflict with the desire to kill.

Manslaughter maybe, but I would rather a judge/jury figure that one out.
Malice isn't needed for some forms of homicide (reckless, for one)

Walmart Murders Customer!
:rolleyes:

Did you get the attention you were craving?

So you believe that property is worth more then a human life?

Property is a representation of what I accomplished in my life. Seperating the two seems illogical to me.

The law disagrees with you.
Aye, and the only reason I respect it is because the government has many, many more guns than I do.

Perhaps if we started immediately killing criminals, outcasts and other people the perfect and sinless society deems to be undesirable, we can stop worrying about all these bothersome ethics and compassion. In fact, we can stop being humans and live amongst wild animals.
Criminal behavior is a CLEAR initation of the use of force. I see absolutely no connection between killing criminals and killing people that I disagree with.

shot? put to death... for shoplifting... nah.

but there is some merit to spending the day in stocks.

I mean come on, going to jail may be harsh for some forms of shoplifting, but some public humiliation if found guilty for shoplifting... set up some old style stocks in a nice public and shaded areas...

Can't see too many repeat offenders.

and for those who are repeat offenders, then put em in jail.
If they are caught after the fact? Sure. But if I owned a store and caught a shoplifter, I'd most certainly point a shotgun at the criminal if given the chance.

Property is a representation of what I accomplished in my life. Seperating the two seems illogical to me.


I see. You're one of those people that believe that killing people because they even look at your property backwards is a-okay.

<snip>Juvenile revenge fantasy rant<snip>

Too much red cordial and violent cartoons for you, I think! :p

Too much red cordial and violent cartoons for you, I think! :p*waits for the first 'I blame GTA:San Andreas' post.* :D

Wheather or not he was guilty of shop lifting is irelivent, there was no INTENT to kill him thus is not murder (Unless you can prove the guy who refused him the carpet and then refused to call an amburlance and refused him CPR INTEDNED to kill him) however, he still died so it becomes 1st degree Involentery Manslaughter in my book.

Example - you accidentaly hit someone in your car doing 30, the guy dies, its involentary manslaughter, you had no intent to kill them but they still died.

Edit: its scary that so many people seem to think petty theft deserves the death penalty...whats next kids, hanging people for being gay? or maybe we should repeal all those womens rights oh oh I know lets reintroduce slavery.

I see. You're one of those people that believe that killing people because they even look at your property backwards is a-okay.
Looking at my property? No. Taking it? Run fast or hope I miss. My property is MINE and I worked my butt off for it. No one else has a right to what I have earned.

Too much red cordial and violent cartoons for you, I think!
I don't watch much television or play many video games. :p

Red Cordial:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~dhell/ratbag.htm

Red Cordial:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~dhell/ratbag.htm

What the hell did I just click on? :eek:

What the hell did I just click on? :eek:
I'm not sure. It came up number one on a google search.

Creepy pictures, though, eh?

*Edit: Oh, it looks like this guy does a "Punch and Judy" show in Australia. Ahh, okay, now I get the reference.

only if the employees entered the conflict with the desire to kill.

Manslaughter maybe, but I would rather a judge/jury figure that one out.
Thats what I meant ... sorry lol my mind picked the wrong one lol

I really want to take a side in this debate, but I feel that I cannot because IF I were in the shoes of the (perhaps innocent) driver or in the shoes of those who held him down, I'd done the same thing. Maybe not, but I really think I could/would do the same.
No one here was in that situation, so I don't think anyone should be as bold to claim that he/she wouldn't've done what the person who ran did or the people who caught him.
I think situations like these show how human judgement isn't perfect... how some things are just..(tr)icky..

:(

Now a headline I'd like to see would read, "Customers Murder Wal-Mart".

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.
You know, I love these people.

They bitch that criminals get off so lightly, that they arn't fully punished.

If they were ever charged with a crime, especially if they were innocent, you'd see their attitude change pretty fucking quickly.

Yea, I only read to page 6 from where I left off so I'm sorta out of the loop, sorry ^.^ I just had to comment on this.

Well, despite what any of the "fire and brimstone" crowd might think, property theft is a pretty minor crime, particularly from a huge corporation.

No one likes to be stolen from, and we all get pissed off when it happens (yes, it has happened to me - I've had a car stolen, a wallet, and two leather jackets - and that's just off the top of my head!), but the "righteous" anger people feel should not be the gauge that we punish petty criminals by...

I think each one of the people involved should also be held down on the pavement the same way. I'm sure this will be another case where law enforcement will slip up and all guilty parties will go free.

BTW. CPR is not a MUST. CPR training is optional and as a civilian you are not doing anythign wrong by not performing it, wether you can or cannot you can only be safe if you perform CPR responsibly and correctly. Though these are weird things, it will not be murder and their is no law stating you MUST perform CPR on someone who is not breathing.

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

Walmart the corp didnt hold the chap down and in the end murder him (assuming things went as told in that story, id call it murder even if they did think he stole something)

Makes me think twice about shopping there with how often Ive had things I bought made the sensors go off .

Course in that case I never tried to run off either.

With people like Stinky Head Cheese, JuNii and Mt-Tau unquestioningly siding with Wally World, it's reflective of how America is slowly turning into a Corporate Bordello if it isn't one all ready.

This along with that cat-killing incident from a long while back tells me that there's an institutional policy in Wal Mart dedicated to cutting back costs on everything, including forcing its employees to handle tasks they are poorly or completely untrained to handle properly... like store security.

And the fact that people like ones mentioned above automatically assume the subject was a hardened criminal is just more symptoms of the It's Not Happening to Me Disease. Bet they'd sing a different tune if someone they knew got manhandled and even died at the hands of Wal Mart employees.

Bottom line is this.

Misapplied procedures, excessive use of force, resulting in the death of an alleged shoplifter.

) it should be a slap on the wrist!! OH..boohoo..the criminal died!!

Last time I checked, shoplifting does not merit a death sentence.

Oh and by the way folks, you are talking to an experienced and trained former emergency services officer, with more than 1500 hours service..

One look at this situation tells me that whoever was handling this was a first class imbecile.

You do not repeat NOT hold anyone on ashphalt in 96 degree heat..to do so risks major issues up to and including heat prostration, chemical burns and head trauma.

Last time I looked (and I AM an expert on CPR, folks) you don't perform it with the guy on his face either.

The body was still face down when found..after medical help was finally called.

There WAS no attempt at resuscitation whatsoever.

Failure to call the police, failure to follow a request for medical attention, use of excessive force off premises with no supervisor present and no attention to (and mark this well, people) a duty of care to which they are fully and totally responsible means that criminal charges will follow.

I suggest some of you go look up "duty of care"..then the Miranda statutes, and the practice and legislation on Texan law in regards to search,seizure, arrest and detention of "suspects" by non authorised, non sworn "vigilantes" who in fact had no legal right whatsoever to use applied force.

One of the staff could just have easily followed the man to his car, noted the number plate and called the police.

No one thought of that, did they?

The rest would be a simple, basic matter.

And the man in question would still be alive.

I think Wal Mart had better get themselves some good lawyers. they will need them.

I worked at WalMart for awhile. Trust me, if you have to enter that nightmare every day of your life, you'd want to kill someone as well. Why not some punkass shoplifter? :) Just shitting. It's a terrible incident, but...

The guy was a thief. A petty thief, but he was stealing, nonetheless. He may be an 'alleged thief' but from where I sit I seriously doubt he was innocent. I also doubt Wal-Mart employees just sit around waiting for someone to frame for shoplifting.'Innocent until proven guilty' is all well and good, but be real.

That said, it's a tragedy he died and that the employees were so ignorant as to not get the guy off the fucking pavement and into the shade, but meh. I had to smash on a few thieves in a store I used to work in and I even had a few fighters. We even tackled a crackhead once who jerked out a needle and threatened us with it. People are shitty.

Fuck thieves. I don't think this guy deserved to die, or that it was handled well, but maybe if, instead of thieving, this guy had been off, mowing a lawn to get the cash to buy those diapers or looking for a better-paying job to afford the luxury of a .bb gun, he wouldn't have suffered such a fate.

Cooperation on the part of the thief would have gone a long way, but that would have required answering for his actions, right? Bah. That's unacceptable. A firm punch to the mouth would probably have settled him enough to allow the other employees to take him inside, but that's not an option either, right? He would have sued.

People are fucking crybabies. Can't kick his ass. Can't forcibly hold him for the police. Can't take the .bb gun from him and shoot him in the ass a few times. Can't hold him down on the scalding pavement... BLEH.

How about this: If someone is caught shoplifting, they deal with the consequences of being a petty little bastard thief? One firm punch in the face for every 10$ stolen, to be given buy the owner of the shop without delay? Would you rather take a few shots to the teeth when you're caught, or would you rather run, fight, and be roasted alive on the pavement?

Stop being bitches. If you're going to be a thief, take your licks.

With all of that said, if I had -no hope- of getting money for diapers or food for my baby, I would definately loot, steal, burn and rape to get whatever she needed. I can respect a man for providing for his family in any way possible, but what about the shades? The bb gun? No. Seems to me he was just a petty little thief that couldn't face the music, and so paid for it.

I don't care, either way. He made a mistake and paid for it, as will the Wally empoloyees in question.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck it in it's stupid ass.

The man was a master carpenter. Switching the sticker on a bag of diapers hardly warrants an assault charger. But they took it TOO far... no, they had to KILL him.

Paying a few bucks less for diapers for a 2-month old is hardly a crime. Diapers are expensive. The world has more important things to worry about the disposablwe underwear. They are people starving to death right now in India, kids dieing of AIDS in Africa. And people back here are fed up about a guy stealing diapers?

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?!

American Capitalism

The man was a master carpenter. Switching the sticker on a bag of diapers hardly warrants an assault charger. But they took it TOO far... no, they had to KILL him.

Paying a few bucks less for diapers for a 2-month old is hardly a crime. Diapers are expensive. The world has more important things to worry about the disposablwe underwear. They are people starving to death right now in India, kids dieing of AIDS in Africa. And people back here are fed up about a guy stealing diapers?

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?!
It's not what this WORLD is coming to, it's what're the STATES coming to?

And there's a very simple answer to that:

They're becoming a FASCIST DICTATORSHIP and a POLICE STATE.

With people like Stinky Head Cheese, JuNii and Mt-Tau unquestioningly siding with Wally World, it's reflective of how America is slowly turning into a Corporate Bordello if it isn't one all ready.

This along with that cat-killing incident from a long while back tells me that there's an institutional policy in Wal Mart dedicated to cutting back costs on everything, including forcing its employees to handle tasks they are poorly or completely untrained to handle properly... like store security.

And the fact that people like ones mentioned above automatically assume the subject was a hardened criminal is just more symptoms of the It's Not Happening to Me Disease. Bet they'd sing a different tune if someone they knew got manhandled and even died at the hands of Wal Mart employees.First and foremost, I am not Siding with Walmart. I have repeatedly stated that Drivers death was an Accident, not that the employees are blameless. (and not agreeing with all those who choose to ignore the possible crime that Drivers did.)

I have stated that the employees have gone too far and that, WalMart's loss prevention policy not withstanding, its not the employee's who are to apprehend the shoplifter, but store security, rent-a-cops or (Preferably) the police.

I have also stated that I do not assign blame because we are not on the jury for this trial and would rather reserve judgement in this incident (unlike those of you who already have rendered judgement, found them guilty and are ready to lynch the employees and the company, read POLICE STATE.)

My husband and I were in WalMart one day. I'm ashamed. It's true. We were pretty poor at the time, and the baby food was cheaper than anywhere else, so we were stocking up. We noticed a young woman with her baby, in a stroller, and what looked to be her mom walking around the same section...and when we were leaving the store, we saw that this group had been stopped by employees and were being searched. We stopped to watch...they had put baby food in the stroller and in the diaper bag. They were stealing baby food. The women were crying, and the employees dealing with them were being extremely verbally abusive. I mean, shit. It's one thing to be stealing shoes or jackets, or whatever. And if you need food, yeah, you should be reaching out to the food bank, or whatever if you simply can't afford it. But you can't treat every theft as equal. Have some compassion for someone who is desperate enough to steal baby food. My husband stepped in (he's a belligerent fuck when he wants to be) and told the employees he was going to pay for the food. They refused, and said they were holding the women anyway...baby screaming and all...but he pushed them enough that they finally (out of confusion I think, and uncomfortable at the large, and angry crowd that had gathered) agreed. The women were able to leave, the paltry 12 jars of baby food in their legal possession. But the shame in their posture still makes me shudder.

What gets me about this situation...and I think what gets a LOT of people about these kinds of thefts (out of necessity) is the fear that it could be us. That something could happen to thrust us into poverty and desperation. Maybe we could make better choices...but there is always the gnawing uncertainty...

My husband and I were in WalMart one day. I'm ashamed. It's true. We were pretty poor at the time, and the baby food was cheaper than anywhere else, so we were stocking up. We noticed a young woman with her baby, in a stroller, and what looked to be her mom walking around the same section...and when we were leaving the store, we saw that this group had been stopped by employees and were being searched. We stopped to watch...they had put baby food in the stroller and in the diaper bag. They were stealing baby food. The women were crying, and the employees dealing with them were being extremely verbally abusive. I mean, shit. It's one thing to be stealing shoes or jackets, or whatever. And if you need food, yeah, you should be reaching out to the food bank, or whatever if you simply can't afford it. But you can't treat every theft as equal. Have some compassion for someone who is desperate enough to steal baby food. My husband stepped in (he's a belligerent fuck when he wants to be) and told the employees he was going to pay for the food. They refused, and said they were holding the women anyway...baby screaming and all...but he pushed them enough that they finally (out of confusion I think, and uncomfortable at the large, and angry crowd that had gathered) agreed. The women were able to leave, the paltry 12 jars of baby food in their legal possession. But the shame in their posture still makes me shudder.

What gets me about this situation...and I think what gets a LOT of people about these kinds of thefts (out of necessity) is the fear that it could be us. That something could happen to thrust us into poverty and desperation. Maybe we could make better choices...but there is always the gnawing uncertainty...
Sinuhue, there is a TG for you.

And more on topic:

Unless it is Walmart official (or unoffical) policy to restrain at all costs, despite any physical problems that may arise from such restraints, then Walmart the company is not (in my mind) responsible. HOWEVER. If the company encourages managers to train employees to restrain at all costs (hence, unofficial policy) there needs to be some company accountability. At the very least, the company needs to have a policy in place for how thieves are to be restrained. For one, imgaine that this particular person had been deranged, or violent...a company should not be risking its employees' safety by requiring them to restrain thieves.

I worked for a chain of liquor stores where it was stressed to us that we were not responsible for stopping or restraining a thief. We were to actively attempt to minimise thefts through various means, but that's it. This became a policy after an employee was fired for not trying to stop a young thief...which lead to another employee not wanting to lose HIS job who chased a thief out of the store, and got knifed by the thief's friend. You don't get paid enough in these kinds of jobs to risk your life over merchandise.

So, two things need to happen:

1) Walmart needs to hire trained, professional security if they intend to restrain and hold theives. Regular employees must not be required to do so.

2) A policy for the proper, safe restraint of a suspect must be put into place.

The man was a master carpenter. Switching the sticker on a bag of diapers hardly warrants an assault charger. But they took it TOO far... no, they had to KILL him.

Paying a few bucks less for diapers for a 2-month old is hardly a crime. Diapers are expensive. The world has more important things to worry about the disposablwe underwear. They are people starving to death right now in India, kids dieing of AIDS in Africa. And people back here are fed up about a guy stealing diapers?

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?!

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Stealing is okay because people in a place 5,000 miles away have disease? :confused:

You know, I love these people.

They bitch that criminals get off so lightly, that they arn't fully punished.

If they were ever charged with a crime, especially if they were innocent, you'd see their attitude change pretty fucking quickly.

Yea, I only read to page 6 from where I left off so I'm sorta out of the loop, sorry ^.^ I just had to comment on this.

Ha! In fact, I bet they're the same people who complain about speeding tickets as well. :p