Wal-Mart security kills man who stole BB Gun and diapers


PDA






P95loser
August 19, 2005, 03:24 PM
A Cleveland man died last Sunday after a scuffle with security guards at the Walmart Super Center located at 6626 FM1960 in Atascocita.

According to witnesses, Stacy Driver ran out of the store and was pursued by Walmart loss prevention employees. A short time later, Driver was dead, and the Walmart employees were trying to explain the last moments of his life to police.

Charles Portz said he was getting out of his car when he saw a heavy blonde haired man being chased by five people who appeared to be security or store employees. He said he saw them wrestling the man to the ground. "The blacktop was extremely hot," said Portz "He had no shirt on and they wouldn't let him up off the blacktop." He said one of the men had Driver in a chokehold and had his knee in the back of his neck as the men tried to subdue him. "He kept trying to get up and they kept pushing him back down," Portz said.

According to Portz, Driver began to plead with them men. "He's begging, 'Please call an ambulance, let me up, do something, I'm gonna die," said Portz. He said the loss prevention employees called the police more than once, but another bystander called for an ambulance after realizing Driver was in trouble. Portz said he eventually began to plead with the Walmart employees. "I told them, this guy doesn't look like he's breathing," Portz said, "They said, 'He's all right." He says he continued to plead with the men, pointing out that the man's fingernails were turning gray. "They said he's just high on something," adding, "They just kept him pinned down for twenty minutes or more until the ambulance came." He said he believed Driver was dead when the ambulance left with him, but he was not certain.

The store employees could not have known that the witness who was pleading with them to let Driver get up from the hot pavement was a high profile Houston attorney, from the Portz and Portz law firm. He said after the man was handcuffed he continued trying in vain to persuade the Walmart employees to allow him to get up, even pointing out that a second pair of cuffs could be used to attach the ones already on Driver to a nearby truck trailer. "The problem is they kept him down on the blistering concrete with no shirt on," Portz reiterated. He said law enforcement arrived at about the same time as the ambulance.

Detective Robert T. Tonry, with the Homicide Division of the Harris County Sheriff's Department is investigating the death. He confirmed that Driver had struggled with Walmart loss prevention employees before being handcuffed and was not breathing a short time later. Tonry said he was transported to Northeast Medical Center in Humble where he pronounced dead. According to Tonry, some of the items Driver had in his possession which were believed to have been stolen were baby diapers, a BB gun and BBs.

Tonry said he was talking to store employees and would be contacting other witnesses. He said anyone else who might have information should contact the Homicide Division of the Harris County Sheriff's Department.

Driver was the son of H.C. Driver of Cleveland. Pat Driver was his step-mother and her sister Lily was speaking for the family on Monday. "The boy was loved and he might have done something wrong, but he did not deserve that," Lily said, "The family has no other comment at this time. "He would have celebrated his 31st birthday on August 31. Instead, his family is making funeral arrangements. As of this writing, the official cause of death had not been released.

Note to those posting comments:

We WILL NOT post ANY comments that would in ANY way be hurtful to this man's family.

We also remind readers that there is no proof he actually took anything.

Advocate staff


source: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15014453&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532241&rfi=6

If you enjoyed reading about "Wal-Mart security kills man who stole BB Gun and diapers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
August 19, 2005, 03:27 PM
Gun content?

P95loser
August 19, 2005, 03:31 PM
he was apprehended for allegedly stealing a bb gun and bbs...

Henry Bowman
August 19, 2005, 03:31 PM
The store employees could not have known that the witness who was pleading with them to let Driver get up from the hot pavement was a high profile Houston attorney Ouch! :what: Would they have acted differently if they had known that the witness was a **shudder** high profile attorney?

In any event, petty thief or not, this look costly to Wally World.

newfalguy101
August 19, 2005, 03:35 PM
some of the items Driver had in his possession which were believed to have been stolen were baby diapers, a BB gun and BBs.

What an absolute waste. :(

P95loser
August 19, 2005, 03:36 PM
I work at a retail store, and Loss Prevention in retail generally seems to be "itching" to "take someone down", they can be very brutal because apprehention situations are so few and far between. The security guards were probably ill-trained promoted cashiers who yearn to use their power...

The going rate for innapropriately detained customers' lawsuits are like 20k per minute... maybe they should have let 20 bucks go out the door...

CAS700850
August 19, 2005, 03:44 PM
I have seen far too many shoplifting and theft cases turn into "violent crimes" and Robbery cases (theft with use of force on a person) due to loss prevention officers who escalate a situation. This doesn't place all of the blame on them, the criminal is to blame as well. But why get into a fight with a guy over two packs of Orange County Chopper stickers (which I recently had to review for charges)?

Cesiumsponge
August 19, 2005, 03:58 PM
"The boy was loved and he might have done something wrong, but he did not deserve that," Lily said, "The family has no other comment at this time. "He would have celebrated his 31st birthday on August 31. Instead, his family is making funeral arrangements. As of this writing, the official cause of death had not been released.
^^^Always the obligatory sympathy clause. The guy wasn't innocent. Granted this (death) isn't what usually happens to shoplifters, but I see the sympathy clause used waaaaay too often in would-be successful criminal stories gone awry that pop up on the news. You break the law or do something stupid and you risk your well being. Like the eggthrowing incident, most people won't react in an extreme manner, but there is a minority that'll go whoop your ass if you steal a stick of gum or toiletpaper up someone's tree.

The security officers sprung in like a supercharged episode of COPS chasing down a murder suspect...but the guy died because he was laying down on hot asphalt? They say the suspect was a "heavy blonde man" but it doesn't indicate just how heavy he was.

DelayedReaction
August 19, 2005, 04:12 PM
Exactly how much force are these guys authorized to use? I was under the impression that they had exactly the same amount of legal authority as any other citizen, and that what was described was pretty much assault (and murder).

SLCDave
August 19, 2005, 04:34 PM
In my teenage years, I was the Loss Prevention guy for a retail clothing store. Basically, my job was to watch for suspicious activity, limit the amount of merchandise the person had in their hands (offer to hold items at the register), and make sure people came out of the fitting rooms with everything they went in with. Once they hit the door, I was told, in no uncertain terms, that my job was to be a good witness.

These guys chased a guy down for $50 worth of merchandise, not knowing if his buddy was waiting in the car with a shotgun, or if the guy was armed himself. The stupidity in this action alone blows my mind. Walmart must be a heckuva place to work for if their employees are willing to risk life and limb to save $50 for the company.

Add everything that happened after that, and you're liable to rattle something loose when shaking your head...

Horsesense
August 19, 2005, 04:49 PM
It sounds like security guys were a little ful of them and possibly need Criminal charges brought against them.



As for Wal-Mart.. I can hear the Lawyer now
“The poor guy was trying to get diapers for his baby, so her rash wont heart her so much, the BB-Gun was to keep the rats away from what presses little food the family had. Mr. worlds largest company, Wal-Mart! had this man executed by hired thugs because they couldn’t spare a few measly bucks for the family that has gone hungry every sense Wal-Mart drove their mom and pop store out of business.”

MudPuppy
August 19, 2005, 05:00 PM
This version certainly indicates that.

It's hard to say how violent he was when being detained. Crimminals (not saying anything specific in this case--just as a general rule) know there is a risk associated with their crime. Sometimes the penalty is higher than they think--but perhaps theys should think harder on the matter.

I'm not saying someone deserves to die over stealing diapers--especially if excessive violence was used, but it seems too many crimes are committed because the perps are willing to risk it or unconcerned about doing time.

KriegHund
August 19, 2005, 05:00 PM
What a crappy way to go out!

"Maybe hes high on something"

In which case you REALLY even more so should get him up off the pavement becuase his hearts already going 200 beats a minute!

scbair
August 19, 2005, 05:03 PM
I've only worked security while moonlighting during my law enforcement days (typically at jewelry stores during the Christmas season), but I did respond to calls from stores, when security had a shoplifter in custody. As a cop, I did have to make arrests, often with no backup on the scene, of hostile, desperate folks. I'm not passing judgment on these loss control guys without more information.

Does anyone doubt the "high-profile" attorney's vision might have been clouded slightly by all the $$$$ he kept seeing? Of course, he (and his law firm) should not be able to represent anyone, as he is a WITNESS if any wrongdoing occurred.

Bottom line, ya can get hurt pretty badly by a "heavy" male shoplifter who doesn't feel like going to jail today. Even restraining someone without injuring them is not as easy as the cop shows would have you believe. The employees may have feared (with whatever justification) that if big guy got to his feet again, they'd be in trouble!

Killed by the heat of the asphalt he was lying on? Maybe. Heart attack? Reaction to drugs? Other? Also maybe . . .

The company sued? Beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Vern Humphrey
August 19, 2005, 05:03 PM
Their mistake was that they weren't cops, and he wasn't holding a baby in his arms.

Note how the shooting of a baby in a hostage situation was vigorously defended on these forums.

jefnvk
August 19, 2005, 05:06 PM
Not everyone is a medical doctor. I didn't know that lying on the hot ground for a few minuets could kill you.

What suprises me, is the number of people that will say they will shoot someone stealing their property (because if you don't, you become a target next time, because they know you won't do anything), but when something like this happens, it is a complete different story.

Cesiumsponge
August 19, 2005, 05:11 PM
“The poor guy was trying to get diapers for his baby, so her rash wont heart her so much, the BB-Gun was to keep the rats away from what presses little food the family had. Mr. worlds largest company, Wal-Mart! had this man executed by hired thugs because they couldn’t spare a few measly bucks for the family that has gone hungry every sense Wal-Mart drove their mom and pop store out of business.”

I wouldn't believe that for a second. I don't sympathize with either party at all. The most commonly stolen items are mundane things like Tylenol, Advil, pregnancy tests, razors, film, batteries, Perparation H, etc. You could turn any of these objects into a poor sap sympathy story.

"The dad stole razors so he could look presentable for his job while the Advil was for his wife who was suffering from headaches which were caused by the pregnancy that was discovered by the pregnancy test. Film and batteries were for a camera so they could capture this Kodak moment. But Walmart has to be a giant cold corporation and execute this poor, poor innocent man."

Hogwash.

We have next to no details on this man and some people are already inventing fanciful stories about how his theft was justified. His death was wrong in such a minor infraction but in a world where minor crimes can incur grave consequences by extremists, I would be very weary of breaking any laws. Throw an egg at a car, someone might shoot you. Steal some Huggies, you get tackled to death. It's not the norm but is it really worth the risk?

Its equally likely he bought the BB gun and BBs to use on his dog to teach it not to poop in the house and he stole diapers because he was too embarassed to purchase at the counter and wanted to wear them himself since he had a baby fetish.

As mentioned, restraining someone isn't as easy as it might appear in Hollywood. Someone who has it in their head to struggle and fight back can indeed do great damage. Just is the case where people in general view it as unfair and one-upmanship to pull a gun in self-defense to defend yourself from someone with a knife. The guy might have carried a firearm. There have been cases where officers wrestling with suspects have been shot by their own firearms or the suspect's own weapon. Likewise, the security acted in a very in a very aggressive manner and by the bias or reporting of the story, took the guy down hard and kept him immobile until authorities arrived. There is a HUGE host of unknowns here. We've learned that many, if not most newspaper articles are heavily biased towards one side or another and facts are often fudged with or neglected to give a certain opinion after reading said article.

The truth probably comprises of one from column A, and one from column B

rabbit
August 19, 2005, 05:14 PM
I am glad I was not in this group when they were defending the baby shooting. I remember reading the LA police comments on that and it made me sick to my stomach. Anybody who thinks that was a "good shoot" has something wrong with them.

Vern Humphrey
August 19, 2005, 05:25 PM
I am glad I was not in this group when they were defending the baby shooting. I remember reading the LA police comments on that and it made me sick to my stomach. Anybody who thinks that was a "good shoot" has something wrong with them.

Both these are not "good shoots." In this case, while the employees were wrong, and Wal Mart will pay, you can make a case that death is not an easily forseen consequence of wrestling a man to the ground and holding him there until the police arrive.

We should also remember that the witness is a lawyer. :barf:

Joejojoba111
August 19, 2005, 05:30 PM
As for the dead baby thread, it was enlightening to say the least.

As for lieing on hot pavement, I don't think you have to be a doctor to know it's bad for you.

As for security guards killing people, it happens all the time. Usually they are killed through suffocation.

"It's hard to say how violent he was when being detained. Crimminals (not saying anything specific in this case--just as a general rule) know there is a risk associated with their crime. Sometimes the penalty is higher than they think--but perhaps theys should think harder on the matter."

I think that arming citizens honestly does make criminals think twice. They don't car-jack police cruisers, because they're armed.

As for the 'Well the penalty is a $500 fine, but you caught us on a bad day, so you're gonna die." concept, I'm pretty sure that's how the justice system in North Korea works. Add a goodly element of corruption and bribery and Ta-Da you have the 'justice system' of the worst regimes on Earth.

Is that really where we want to be going? You know what, I'm afraid how many people will answer yes...

spacemanspiff
August 19, 2005, 05:33 PM
sounds kind of similar to what happened up here last winter. a man was at a bar, bouncers said he had to leave, and when he gave the slightest notion he was going to argue with them, they jumped him and held him on the ground. he asphyxiated. the whole thing is on videotape, and the DA decided not to try and prosecute.

i'm curious if walmart's insurance covers the regular employee who tries to stop a shoplifter? way back when i worked in retail, we were told that we could not stop a suspected shoplifter, the plainclothes security was the only ones qualified and covered by insurance to do such.

there may be legal recourse if non-security employees of walmart did the detaining/restraining that led to this alleged-shoplifters death.

entropy
August 19, 2005, 06:25 PM
Can't let them Huggies out the door without proper authorization. :p His family will make $$$ on it, as well they should. Yes, he shoplifted, but even back when I did loss Prevention at a large retailer that also ended in -Mart, we tried not to off the people we collared. ;)

jefnvk
August 19, 2005, 06:27 PM
As for lieing on hot pavement, I don't think you have to be a doctor to know it's bad for you.

Certainly it si not good for you, but I didn't think a few minuets on hot asphalt would kill you.

DelayedReaction
August 19, 2005, 06:43 PM
I'm not particularly interested on supporting either "side" in this case. The guy was stealing, which automatically lowers him in my book. But I can't fathom there being any possible justification for the guards detaining him, let alone putting him a compromising (and fatal) position.

Again, exactly what are these people authorized to do?

LiquidTension
August 19, 2005, 06:46 PM
When I worked at Best Buy the LP guys were specifically instructed that they were not allowed to put hands on a suspected shoplifter. They could stand in their way and block the door, but as soon as they tried to grab someone - instant lawsuit.

Once the guy was handcuffed, there was zero reason to keep him pressed on the ground. So what if he tried to run away? I'm fairly certain the cops could identify a shirtless handcuffed guy if he got out of eyeshot :rolleyes:

Oh, and why does Walmart security even HAVE handcuffs? I didn't think you could just restrain somebody for a petty crime :confused:

Joejojoba111
August 19, 2005, 06:47 PM
What about putting your hand on the stove, but only when the burner is on low? C'mon, it's on low, what do you have to lose?

Seriouly, though, you can put your hand into the oven when it's on low, and you're ok. That's air. Put your hand on the burner and heat transfer is much greater.

While vehilcles don't actually get hot enough to cook eggs, they get hot enough to burn you. And the longer you touch the worse you burn it.

And a half hour holding my hand on the burner... damn.

And you have to appreciate how these wannabe cops have learned the ways - 'he's on drugs, stay back, it's under control'.



Aside - what's also disturbing is that no-one helped this man. This man is probably not somebody any of us would want to share an elevator with, to say the least. But he was a human, and he was being slowly killed, quite obviously.

It's amazing how many people will bow to the pretense of authority, how they will believe the obvious lies (he's ok), or they will know better yet do nothing anyway.

I tell you this sort of ambivalence has let all sorts of evil happen in the past, and we're being shown crystal-clear pictures that the situation is right so they can still happen today. Crystal freaking clear.

JohnBT
August 19, 2005, 06:47 PM
20 minutes or more is a long time to be face down on the pavement. Go try it barefoot. :)

"Does anyone doubt the "high-profile" attorney's vision might have been clouded slightly by all the $$$$ he kept seeing?"

Me. Not everybody is trolling for business, especially the high profile types.

John

psyopspec
August 19, 2005, 07:10 PM
I was under the impression that they had exactly the same amount of legal authority as any other citizen

In my state they do, which means if you see a crime going on you are justified in performing a citizen's arrest and alerting authorities immediately.

Cesiumsponge
August 19, 2005, 07:51 PM
A stove and asphalt have nothing in common.

A burner on low is still hot enough to burn paper and boil water which means it's well above 212F in temperature. Black asphalt on a sunny day gets hot. On a 100F+ day, the surface can probably peak at 140F due to absorbing energy from the Sun and radiating it since it's a very good blackbody radiator, but I've never thrown ice on asphalt on a hot day and watch it literally boil away (though it'll evaporate much more readily).

A burner and asphalt are two different things. Asphalt is radiating heat it readily absorbed from the Sun. It isn't it's own self-sustaining heat source like a stove. It can get hot, but only to a certain point and it ceases to stay at an elevated temperature when Sun is no longer shining on it. The guy was on the patch of asphalt which meant the Sun was no longer shining on it and the asphalt he was on cooled off underneath him. On a hot day, touch asphalt thats been in direct Sun. Then cast a shadow over it and watch/feel how fast it cools off. That's all useless details though.

Either way, the guy was fat. How fat? It's unsure. I find it much more likely his violent collapse onto the pavement broke his ribs and caused punctured lungs or a collapsed lung. At this point, it's only speculation.

Joejojoba111
August 19, 2005, 08:43 PM
I agree, with conditions. My burner on low doesn't boil water, and it's a well known fact that cities effect microclimates exactly because of the retention and slow release of thermal energy. That's why it can be so hot in a city on a summer night, yet cool out in the country, you're living on a giant terrarium heat-rock.

And we all agree he was not cooked alive, that there was no puddle of grease from his run-off... Just that he was allegedly submitted to extremely cruel and unusual, well it wasn't punishment because he hadn't been tried, but he was submitted to cruel and unusual physical battery. IOW he was tortured.

And as for how hot is too hot, if you walk in the desert the sand will burn your feet. In fact, in the 1920's there was a religious scandal when a young lady in California with a large religious following disappeared (on a love vacation) and then to cover-up claimed she was kidnapped and escaped by walking barefoot through the desert. Her story was disproved because the burns to her feet were nowhere near extensive enough, And a dark surface will be absorbing even more radiation than sand-colored sand does.

Furthermore I agree that after 19 minutes the pavement would be cooler than when he lay down on it first, but that matters little. As well it will not cool to his ordinary body temperature, for 2 reasons. #1 his body temperature is higher than it should be, for multiple reasons. #2 the surrounding pavement will serve to heat the pavement under him to a degree. So after 20 minutes the pavement would stll have the temperature to be very uncomfortable, but you would not feel it because you'd have 2nd degree burns numbing your nerve endings.

Cesiumsponge
August 19, 2005, 09:15 PM
Well said. Our old electric stove burns towels on low. I was a kid and went to wipe down the burners while it was on low (stupid me). It ended up stinking up the kitchen since it turned my mom's favorite silkscreened (or whatever they call it...it had a picture) terrycloth into a smoldering black mess :uhoh: Don't tell her :p . That was probably before they tailored stoves to be child-safe. Still, we don't know exactly how hot it was that day so we're on a theoretical back-and-forth.

I will agree that the hot pavement would serve to aggravate the individual and perhaps even trigger any health problems. I'm under the belief that heat from the pavement wasn't the sole cause of his death but probably helped aggravate the condition he was in. Getting WWF-slammed into the pavement and then sat/restrained on probably jostled up his insides pretty good. Looks like we're going to have to wait for the coroner's report on this one.

White Horseradish
August 19, 2005, 09:21 PM
I don't really think the temperature of the pavement is very relevant. Yes, it would be uncomfortable, but it won't kill you. This seems a lot more important: one of the men had Driver in a chokehold and had his knee in the back of his neck as the men tried to subdue him.

Choking and pressing someone can't be very healthy. And I think this is an excellent question: Just why couldn't "a second pair of cuffs ... be used to attach the ones already on Driver to a nearby truck trailer"?

And why did it take the ambulance 20 minutes to show up?

LawDog
August 19, 2005, 09:28 PM
The authority the Loss Prevention guys were probably working under is Article 18.16 of the Texas Code of criminal Procedure:Art. 18.16. Preventing consequences of theft

Any person has a right to prevent the consequences of theft by
seizing any personal property that has been stolen and bringing it,
with the person suspected of committing the theft, if that person
can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or delivering
the property and the person suspected of committing the theft to a
peace officer for that purpose. To justify a seizure under this
article, there must be reasonable ground to believe the property is
stolen, and the seizure must be openly made and the proceedings had
without delay.

We don't know what happened here, but I do find something a little odd in the witness statement:

He said one of the men had Driver in a chokehold and had his knee in the back of his neck as the men tried to subdue him. "He kept trying to get up and they kept pushing him back down," Portz said.

According to Portz, Driver began to plead with them[sic] men. "He's begging, 'Please call an ambulance, let me up, do something, I'm gonna die," said Portz.

Now, I've applied and received my fair share of chokeholds in judo and shootfighting sparring and I've applied chokeholds on the street.

People don't talk, much less plead, when they're in a chokehold, folks.

Probably sloppy reporting, but could be one to keep an eye on.

LawDog

Lee F
August 19, 2005, 09:54 PM
Poor spelling.

Lucky
August 19, 2005, 10:07 PM
When I was working in a warehouse at a big store a guy gan off with a weed-wacker. The owner's grown son was all macho and took off in chase, a chase a heavy guy like him could never win, and a bunch of warehouse guys figured why not. Lol but they weren't model employees, some were more likely to be on the other side of the chase in fact, so they only ran far enough to be out of sight and then took a good long break:)

BWT it reads like it was 20 minutes of intermittent choking and pleading, and struggling, which would lead to choking, which subsided with pleading, then struggling to get up, then...

Otony
August 19, 2005, 10:26 PM
I am not siding on for anyone here, but I would like to point out that I burned my feet to the point of blisters walking on an asphalt road back in the early 70's.

I was with two girls (who were smart enough to wear sandals), and had been going barefoot almost continously for the past two years (yup, my hippie phase :D ). They were going down the road to climb down the reservoir bank. Intent was skinny-dippin', and I was bound and determined to follow them! :rolleyes:

distance was about 25 yards, and I MOVED brutha! Both feet were blistered and took weeks to heal up. A messy situation, though the water and companionship, ahem, soothed me more than a bit.

I sure as heck would not want to be held down by a slew of folks none too gentle on hot asphalt, I surely would not.

Otony

Lone_Gunman
August 19, 2005, 10:34 PM
I wish WalMart would go out of business. They suck and are ruining America.

Avenger29
August 19, 2005, 11:32 PM
Hmm, Interesting...

I saw about the same thing when I brought my Ruger 10/22 from Walmart. As an assistant manager was escorting us out of the store, I saw a guy pinned down by three big guys. I asked what in the h#$!? and the manager said it was a shoplifter apprehended by security.

They should have used more care...If a cop did this, you would hear on the national news the awful cries about "police brutality" :barf: . But you here nothing.

I can't really take a side on this due to lack of info. However, I feel no sympathy for shoplifters, even for the ones who 'lift from the hated Walmart corporation. But I definetly do not take Walmart's side either.

MachIVshooter
August 20, 2005, 12:02 AM
This guy was a shoplifter, and deserved to be punished. But misdemeaner shoplifting is not a capitol offense. These loss prevention goons definitely overstepped their authority, and should be charged with, at minimum, aggrivated assault (if not involuntary manslaughter). We, as civilians, are not allowed to pursue a burgler once outside of our homes. And a commercial retail store is not given the right to use force to prevent loss. They are only allowed to attempt to keep the suspect in the store until police arrive.

Bet these five kids will really regret killing a man to save a few bucks for an employer they will grow to hate.

etex
August 20, 2005, 12:45 AM
Shoplifter-Certainly did not deserve to die.

Criminal activity-Carries with it great risks. Although this story saddens me he put himself in this position-personal responsibility.

Loss prevention- Oops! What have we done over a sack of diapers and some
BB's.

Wal-Mart- Sued for many $million$

Shoppers-We all pay for the actions of a theif a penny at a time.

Whos fault?- The criminal that started this chain of events. Sad.

docfubar
August 20, 2005, 12:55 AM
I am a LP for Walmart in California, and I was taught that only enough force to stop an attack on yourself was all that is allowed. LP's for Walmart have to wait until the suspect has left the building before we are allowed to approach them but even if they fight or run as long as we get the merchandise back we are to end all confrontations. If they are nice enough to come back inside with us then we get the stat. I myself have a problem with my upper supervisors who want more stats even though the main part of our job is detterence which is why I am waiting for my replacement..

But I have heard stories of LP's being to over zealous for their own good. If the LP's screwed up let them pay.
That's my .02!

gtd
August 20, 2005, 01:05 AM
When I go into Wal-Mart, there's a nice old person who says, "Hello."

When I leave, there's a dip-s__t old person who thinks he has to inspect my bag or my cart, because there are no customer service people paying any attention to my customer needs when I'm in the store.

So it's assumed that I'm a shoplifter because it's easier to do that than it is to help me a little while I'm trying to give Wal-Mart some business.

Wal-Mart does not need to kill people.

:fire:

Sindawe
August 20, 2005, 02:27 AM
When I leave, there's a dip-s__t old person who thinks he has to inspect my bag or my cart, because there are no customer service people paying any attention to my customer needs when I'm in the store. I've rarely encountered this when shopping (can count on two hands over the years). When I've been in a good mood, I'll reply "Sure, I'd I'd like a large pizza with Calimari, palm grubs and pineapple with a side of deep fried baby fingers" while I keep walking. Confuses the LP Mr. Redshirts long enough to exit the premises. When I'm NOT in a good mood, the reply is a simple "NO". The two times the issue has been pressed, all merchandise has been returned right then and there, the "official" is given a dressing down, followed by a call, email and letter to the Corp. office. Never had a 2nd occurrence when I returned.

Wally-World "copulated with Fido" in this case, and somebody died who, while he may have been a thieving scumbag, did not deserve the fate imposed on him.

Byron Quick
August 20, 2005, 03:01 AM
Sounds like he won a Darwin Award to me.

I do not believe that the employess would have held him down on pavement if he had not stolen, run, resisted, etc.

I don't have a very high opinion of the LP employees but dead guy was stupid to the bone. Earth to dead guy: If you had stopped with your loot in the store and resisted...you would have been held down on a nice air conditioned floor.

Once it reaches a certain level of intensity; stupidity IS a capital crime. The universe exacts the penalty without mercy and there is no appeal. (paraphrasing Robert Heinlein's original statement)

It's really simple..don't want to die stupidly? Don't live stupidly.

It wasn't the crimininality that killed him...it was the stupidity that was terminal.

I'll save my sympathy for more deserving candidates; such as heavy smokers who have lung cancer.

chris in va
August 20, 2005, 03:18 AM
Since when are store employees allowed to tackle/detain shoplifters when outside the store? :confused:

Should be interesting to see the outcome of this mess.

c_yeager
August 20, 2005, 04:16 AM
Since when are store employees allowed to tackle/detain shoplifters when outside the store?

Since when havent they?

If some guy grabs your wallet do you have to stop chasing him at your property line?

toivo
August 20, 2005, 05:01 AM
My guess is that a combination of factors killed him--lack of oxygen, panic reaction, etc. But I wouldn't rule out a very high body temperature as a factor. I worked as a roofer's helper one summer, and the shingled surfaces were hot enough to burn exposed skin very quickly. I can only imagine what lying down shirtless on that stuff would have been like. I figure you'd go into shock pretty quickly, especially if you were breathing heavy from running and had three goons sitting on you. Not to mention probably being overweight, out of shape, and wacked out on something to begin with. Heat stroke can be fatal. You don't have to literally fry to die from heat.

Shoplifting is stupid, but not usually fatally stupid. I would reserve that title for hurricane watchers and people who pose for pictures with large carnivores.

only1asterisk
August 20, 2005, 06:55 AM
In this instance, WM needed to do a bit better job keeping the thief form dying while they held him. By appearing to care a bit more for the safety of the "poor shirtless Red Ryder aficionado" they could have saved themselves some money. Maybe they will learn to keep mediocre people out of jobs that require good judgement. Most probably not.

I have no pity for the thief either. He chose to violate other people's property rights. Had he chosen to respect them he might hae lived through the day. He reaped what he sowed.

Did he deserve his miserable end? I don't know. I'm ignorant of his history and unqualified to judge. But I know know this: Sometimes life is harsh.

David

JohnBT
August 20, 2005, 07:14 AM
"The guy was on the patch of asphalt which meant the Sun was no longer shining on it and the asphalt he was on cooled off underneath him."

It doesn't work that way. Think about the constant heat transfer from the surrounding blacktop that's still hot and still soaking up sunlight.

John

garyk/nm
August 20, 2005, 07:22 AM
Since when are store employees allowed to tackle/detain shoplifters when outside the store?
If they're still in the store, it aint shoplifting yet. What, the parking lot isn't store property? Now, if they dog-piled him at the Burger King across the street, then you have an issue.
No opinions on legality, other than Wally will pay big. And the lawyer/witness? He's gonna make some money off of this too.

Bluey
August 20, 2005, 07:43 AM
The way this fella died sounds very like a high profile case in Sydney a few years ago where the security at star city casino held a guy down and killed him. Basicly they put too much pressure on his chest and he could breath properly, the security were in house and pretty poorly trained. The main reason I know anything about it is it had quite a impact on any training security guards have to do.
There's a specific name for the way of dieing that I'm thinking of but I can't remember what it's called, guess it's a little late in the day for me.

EDIT: Thank only1asterisk, that's the name i was after. Positional asphixiation.

only1asterisk
August 20, 2005, 07:56 AM
Positional asphyxiation

Is that the term you're looking for?

David

spartacus2002
August 20, 2005, 08:01 AM
And the lawyer/witness? He's gonna make some money off of this too.

for those busting on the lawyer, he most likely wouldn't be able to represent the family, as he is a witness.

And, being a lawyer doesn't automatically make him a liar. ;)

Matt G
August 20, 2005, 09:54 AM
I've bought diapers at WalMart.

I've bought BB's and pellets and shopped for airguns at WalMart.

I found all to be too expensive. (But then, I'm cheap.) I like my money. WalMart likes it too, and would rather not have to raise prices to offset the losses by thieves.

Texas law allows force --including deadly force-- to stop the consequences of theft. This guy didn't stop and give up-- he ran util he was stopped, and then resisted. Do you know what that makes it, when he physically resists a store employee during the commission of theft? Strongarm robbery. Will it fly? Depends upon whether he got any kicks or punches in while being apprehended, and what kind of intake attorney is on duty at Harris County DA's office. (Well, this one will never get charged...)

It seems that the guy died of positional asphyxiation and heat exhaustion. No, WalMart LP guys probably aren't trained in how to prevent that. Very possibly they aren't trained even in how to cuff a guy. Their job is to stop people and call the cops, which they did. Because they're not going to be trained much, they're going to be that much more cautious with the guy they had to chase down, and are going to leave him on the ground until the cops arrived. Still and all, I'm fine with them carrying 'cuffs. They next guy they cuff may be the robber who puts a knife in my mother's face next.

It is a good question why the emergency response by cops and ambulance was so slow.

This is a civil case, not a criminal case.

zahc
August 20, 2005, 11:25 AM
I got nice, gross looking, bleeding, blistering burns on my arm once when I fell off my bike on hot pavement and was out for a couple minutes.

ny32182
August 20, 2005, 12:00 PM
I will respond in kind as long as I am physically able to any Wal-mart employee(s) who try to detain me. They aren't cops. :fire:

Justin
August 20, 2005, 12:59 PM
My guess is you probably don't have anything to worry about if you aren't shoplifting.

;)

moredes
August 20, 2005, 01:06 PM
I don't get it. There seems to be a general sentiment that 'the poor guy' didn't "deserve" to die; and that his death was a 50/50 proposition when Walmart's blame is assigned.

My point of view is, "deserve" has nothing to do with this guy's dying; whatever his theft was, misdemeanor or felony, he set into motion a cascading set of actions he had no control over, except that he chose to instigate them by his act. All else is synchronicity fated against him.

Whatever the 'law' deems just, as his punishment is not in question here--he had to survive his encounter and make it through the court system in order to get what he "deserved" (according to the severity of his crime); but between the thievery and his (possible) apprehension, there's an "outcome" that must be pondered--"what is my plan?" Obviously, he didn't have one, and the his capture and all else that followed is a nightmare of coincidence and (maybe) emotional retribution (on the LP's part) that couldn't be anticipated, but must be accepted as "unintended consequence" at the moment of thievery.

The fault is all his, the thief's; sure, the Walmart LP's probably crossed a line, but from the scant description, who's to know? If the theft is fact and not "alleged", only one thing is sure; Stacy Driver made his choice.

GunGoBoom
August 20, 2005, 02:02 PM
The store employees could not have known that the witness who was pleading with them to let Driver get up from the hot pavement was a high profile Houston attorney, from the Portz and Portz law firm

It's about time someone else shared in all that cash, besides the Walton family members - now this guy's family will too, and it sounds like they should.

MikeIsaj
August 20, 2005, 02:53 PM
Exactly how much force are these guys authorized to use? I was under the impression that they had exactly the same amount of legal authority as any other citizen, and that what was described was pretty much assault (and murder).Seems like the safest thing to comment on.

In Pa. a merchant or his agent is allowed to immediatly pursue, detain and search a suspected shoplifter. That is a very basic version of the law but, it clearly gives merchants a bit more authority over the average citizen. pursuit can continue off property as long as it is an immediate action. Detention can involve a reasonable use of force or restraint necessary to enforce the detention. Detention can be for a reasonable amount of time to investigate the incident or to await the arrival of the police. An appropriate search for evidence can also be done subsequent to investigation.

Once restrained the detainee is under the care and custody of the merchant. The merchant has an obligation to safeguard the detainee while in custody.

Sounds like security didn't over react, more like they didn't de-escalate the use of force. Stopping and detaining the man was probably appropriate. Use of force was also probably appropriate. Once they had him in custody, force should have been de-escalated and custodial care initiated. They should have moved him into the store if possible, recovered the stolen merchandise and held him for police.

Saw a comment that "it isn't shoplifiting until you leave the store." Not always so. If you pick up merchandise, make a deliberate effort to conceal it and move around the registers and head towards the door, you have shown intent and taken substantial steps towards commiting the crime. You can be charged, although leaving the store does make it more apparent and harder to defend. The problem with allowing a person out of the store is that it emboldens them. A person will act much differiently when detained outside the store than they will inside. I would take the chance of losing a conviction in excange for a safer confrontation and detention. The benefit to the merchant of catching a shoplifter is more in the public detention than the prosecution. Seeing a shoplifter caught is the deterrent value.

Jeff White
August 20, 2005, 03:38 PM
Sounds like a training issue to me. Wal-Mart should provide training for their loss prevention people if they are going to authorize them to detain combative suspects. Perhaps provide them with some intermediate force options.

They will most likely pay dearly for this incident and in the aftermath will either change their policy on loss prevention detaining suspects or provide them with training and other force options.

I am amazed at the responses to this thread. In other threads I see many people advocating shooting thieves if they are the victim, yet a corporation doesn't seem to have the same right......A lot of double standards around here lately...

Jeff

Joejojoba111
August 20, 2005, 03:53 PM
What if cutting-off someone's air supply makes them combative? Who wouldn't be combative when they can't breath? It's probably not even vountarily controllable.

Any time you mess with someones A)circulatory B)Respiratory or C) nervous - systems, you are attemtping to kill them. Doesn't matter what you claim you were doing, the liklihood of death is there. Don't care what any law says, it's a fact a human reality fact.

Just a reminder, when you strangle someone to death you are in fact killing them. For those who actually need to be reminded :banghead: And no, you may not face any legal actions, but what ya gonna do.

I also agree, that life is unfair. The guy did in fact set in motion this sequence of events, that he would be tackled. But he did not set in motion the sequence of events that he would die from a gang beating and strangulation. If you want to make that argument you can go join those who blame the pretty girl for getting raped, because she wore provocative clothing.

Just a final reminder, it's fat naked shoplifters like this guy who defend our rights. You heard me, you read that. They are the fringes, they define the boundaries. They are the front line in human rights. Every time they lose, the front-line is re-drawn another step inwards. The constitution wasn't meant to protect 99% of people, it was meant to protect the odd-balls, and then by default everyone would be covered. Every time they win - you hear on the radio how society has lost, how we're soft on fat naked shoplifters. People don't realize that those fat naked shoplifters are fighting for everyone's rights, by default. It's amazing how many people can be convinced to hate freedom.

But that's forgotten today, when it's so much easier to get on a radio show and flip the 'hate' switch in people's brains, discontinue rational thought.

cratz2
August 20, 2005, 04:36 PM
Here's my $.02:

1. Different states give different rights to individuals and companies to defend their property and Texas is famous for giving many rights to property owners.

2. If the LP staff were not trained specifically on how to properly detain a person in the heat and/or on 120+ degree asphalt, then they over-stepped their bounds and should be at the very, absolute least, removed from their positions and not be allowed to serve in a security or LP capacity in the future.

3. Related to #2, I think the family will receive some compensation. As long as they don't find he was on a serious upper, and if it can be proven that they didn't intend to kill him, then it was an accident and they will receive, and should be entitled to, some compensation.

4. Regardless of how much the family of the thief does or does not receive in settlement, the lawyer/witness will receive a big chunk for his ordeal. As long as he can show he hasn't taken a life or witnessed a similar encounter in the past, this has 'forever scarred him' and he'll probably make more than a couple bucks.

5. The BB gun thing... geez dude! I mean, what the hell was he thinking? Diapers alone would get a bit of sympathy, deserved or not, but a BB gun? No one NEEDS a BB gun.

kbr80
August 20, 2005, 04:56 PM
If you are going to carry handcuffs, and physically restrain folks with them, you are responsible for their well being while they are detained. Cant have it both ways, cant get to use handcuffs and not be responsible for the welfare of the person you detained.

Justin
August 20, 2005, 06:00 PM
It's about time someone else shared in all that cash, besides the Walton family members I can't let this statement fly, not only because it's patently untrue that only the Walton family shares in the profits- Walmart is, after all, publically traded on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol WMT) which means that anyone is free to share in the profits of Walmart simply by investing in them.

But assuming you were aware of this, your statement smacks of classism and hatred for those who are wealthy, and plays right into the ethic that redistribution of wealth is a good thing.

Will this guy's family get a large settlement out of Walmart because of his death?

Probably.

Does Walmart deserve to get slapped with a lawsuit over his death?

Probably.

But your support for taking money from Walmart simply because you mistakenly believe that the Waltons are the only ones profiting from their business is nothing more than the ethic of a looter, and an ethic that is anathema to the very basis of freedom.

Vern Humphrey
August 20, 2005, 06:03 PM
It's about time someone else shared in all that cash, besides the Walton family members

You're perfectly free to go out and start your own chain of stores, you know.

Wal Mart is publicly-traded. Anyone can buy shares and share in the profits.

only1asterisk
August 20, 2005, 06:06 PM
Justin, moredes,

Better than I could have said it.

David

GT
August 20, 2005, 07:44 PM
Joejojoba111:People don't realize that those fat naked shoplifters are fighting for everyone's rights, by default. It's amazing how many people can be convinced to hate freedom.
Talk about disingenuous!

So by extension the illegal immigrant is fighting for our right not to have to have a license or insurance? The gang member is fighting for my right not to have to have a NICS check when I buy a gun? The rapist is fighting for my right to get laid when I feel like it?
Criminals fighting for my rights? No, they are just fighting to get something that isn't theirs for nothing.
Their fight is the very antithesis of "constitutional"; it is sociopathic.

The Constitution was created to define how the law-abiding should be able to live in a free country, not how the law-breakers should be able to redefine how the rest of us live.

Actions have consequences. To blame anyone else but the fat shoplifter for setting in motion the sequence of events is wrong.
Blame some individuals for perhaps an inappropriate response but don't try to tell me that fat boy has the moral high ground.
That's ridiculous.

G

only1asterisk
August 20, 2005, 08:00 PM
People that violate the rights of others are not oddballs, nor do they fight for freedom. They are the lowest sort of human refuse.

David

cxm
August 20, 2005, 09:10 PM
This sort of thing makes you wonder... suppose an otherwise honest CHL holder who has stolen nothing were attacked by three of Walmart's big goons.... has the potential to make for an interesting lethal force case...

It also makes an interesting "what if" for a bystander... because Texas law allows the use of lethal force to protect the life of another... and this might well meet the test involved... though I never suggest use of force for another not family... but still an interesting topic for discussion.

Of course I avoid Walmart like the plague... VERY down market place...

FWIW

Chuck

ny32182
August 20, 2005, 09:31 PM
cxm, exactly.

I've never stolen anything from Walmart or anywhere else.

Imagine yourself in this situation. You are leaving Walmart, and their goons think you have taken something. What would you do if they put their hands on you?

As far as I'm concerned, a $100,000,000,000.00 corporation like Walmart takes a certain risk when they assault someone, just like some $2 theif takes when he steals from someone.

Did the theif suffer the (maybe unforseeable) consequences of his actions? Yes.

Will Walmart suffer the (maybe unforseeable) consequences of its actions? (in the form of paying out millions?) I hope so, in this specific case.

MudPuppy
August 20, 2005, 09:34 PM
It's about time someone else shared in all that cash, besides the Walton family members - now this guy's family will too, and it sounds like they should.

Woot, Hell YEAH--Communists ROCK. Let's all steal from the rich, we're all oppressed. That's what you meant, right? Right? Steal from people that have worked hard (or made good business decisions) and have made it good? Or sue the parent company at every opportunity? Is this really what we want America to be?

(And nailing Walmart to the cross because of the actions of some individuals is EXACTLY the same as restricting gun rights due to a couple of criminals that use guns in their crimes--how about we hold the individuals responsible. I think Walmart sucks for a host of reasons, but right is right and wrong is wrong.)

Lone_Gunman
August 20, 2005, 10:00 PM
I think a message needs to be sent to Wal Mart that murder cannot be committed in the name of inventory control.

It won't bankrupt them to have to learn this lesson, and we (society) will be better off after they learn it.

I doubt their stock will drop one cent when the jury verdict comes out.

Joejojoba111
August 20, 2005, 10:07 PM
"People that violate the rights of others are not oddballs, nor do they fight for freedom. They are the lowest sort of human refuse.

David"

I don't know who's rights you're talking about, the fat naked shoplifter or the brutal gang-beating loss preventions officers? It's not clear by your statement.



"Criminals fighting for my rights? No, they are just fighting to get something that isn't theirs for nothing.
Their fight is the very antithesis of "constitutional"; it is sociopathic."

...ok... I think I was unclear, my fault. Fat naked shoplifter guy is easy to abuse, because no-one likes him. He's fat, he's naked, he smells funny, and he's a shoplifter. If that means that it's OK to treat him like ????, then the 'boundaries' in the fight for our rights, the front line, shifts inwards. It's trench warfare, long and slow. Every fat naked shoplifter who is state-sanctioned murdered is a battle won for those who don't care about your rights and freedoms.

Otherguy Overby
August 20, 2005, 11:48 PM
Lemme tell you about hot pavement. I've lived in the desert southwest for a lot of years, I've toured on a motorcycle when the temperature was above 120. At night the ground temperature in the hottest part of the summer may not drop below 120 for most of the night. Now I know this didn't occur in the desert southwest but it still gets really hot around Houston in the summertime. I noticed most of the comments regarding ground temperature came from people in northern areas.

Hint to you all: There are no FM roads in Ohio.

Now if it's over one hundred degrees and you do some physical activity and then are held down on hot pavement by people sitting on you, a healthy person may only have 20 minutes of life expectancy. One needs to get into shade somewhere and not the shade of people sitting on you.

Trust me on this, if it's really hot out, it doesn't take a whole lot more to get one into heat stroke. Seems to me that a body temp of 108 often causes death or permanent brain damage.

Now, onto what if? What if the guy just set off one of those stupid alarms that often seem to go off when I'm exiting a store with paid for merchandise in a store bag with a receipt? If several gorillas in civies started to chase me for no apparent reason, I might run some, too.

Seriously, what if the guy wasn't a thief?

docfubar
August 21, 2005, 12:27 AM
All Walmart LP's need to havefour elements on making anuy stop: Selection, concealment, observation, and exit. Walmart LP's can NOT stop some one until they are putting their foot outside the door. That is policy, but because of that we are to have a witness with us and they encourage us to have a couple of people with us because a show of force hopefully will stop a suspect from being combative.

I am a Walmart LP. I have made stops on people shoplifting. I have never hurt someone trying to steal. Walmart has a good training plan and to carrry cuffs you need to be certified by a LEO. Even though I am California POST certified I don't carry cuffs. Why I don't want the headache.

Accordingto the article the LP's in question screwed up. They had a responsiblity to detain and protect the suspect until turned over to law enforcement. If the suspect complains of medical problems then EMS should be called.

I don't condone their actions in the least bit but those 5 are the ones that should be held accountable but in this sue happy nation we live in Walmart and all the shareholders will be held responsible, not the Waltons.

Buck Snort
August 21, 2005, 03:45 AM
For the record. There is a member of the Walton family living in some little hamlet in Arkansas, she's worth some $18bil. She "sponsors" a pre-school!! Hey, noblese-oblige lives!! This fat criminal's family will profit handily from his misdeeds!! Life goes on. Geeze, why didn't my WIFE steal some diapers when she was at Wal-Mart today!!

c_yeager
August 21, 2005, 04:11 AM
unclear, my fault. Fat naked shoplifter guy is easy to abuse, because no-one likes him. He's fat, he's naked, he smells funny, and he's a shoplifter. If that means that it's OK to treat him like ????,

Actually, that does mean that its ok to treat him like ????

He's a criminal, we treat criminals poorly so that people dont want to continue being criminals. People like this are a blight on society and we have no only a right but an obligation to keep them under control.

Now that doesnt mean that this guy should have been killed. But it does mean that he should have been chased and arrested for being a thief. The people who aprehended him made an honest mistake. The whole situation never happens if some worthless thief decides not to steal other people's property in the first place.

Mannlicher
August 21, 2005, 01:18 PM
Wally World would not need all those vicious 'loss prevention' troopies were it not for folks like this perp.
The family always says 'he was such a good boy'.
And the lawyer did not even have to chase the ambulance that time :)

TaxPhd
August 21, 2005, 01:20 PM
"He said one of the men had Driver in a chokehold and had his knee in the back of his neck."

I know a little about choke holds from playing Judo for most of my life. I guess this is possible, but not very likely. A choke hold with your knee in the back of the neck??

It hurts the credability of the report.

I would like to read more about what actually happened before coming to a conclusion.




Scott

Shweboner
August 21, 2005, 01:37 PM
I work at a retail store, and Loss Prevention in retail generally seems to be "itching" to "take someone down", they can be very brutal because apprehention situations are so few and far between. The security guards were probably ill-trained promoted cashiers who yearn to use their power...


Thats probably not too far from the truth. I used to be a manager at a large retail store, I wont name names, but they used to have a 'softer side' and now offer 'the good life'

anyhow, I managed about 35 cashiers. I hired a bunch of new ones for seasonal work. I left the job in March. One of the guys I hired, and ended up letting go because he basically sucked. I came back into the store a few months later and this guy was working LP!!!!!! HOLY CRAP

They actually rehired this loser as LP after he failed at being a lowly cashier!

:what: oh yeah and these guys make MAYBE $1 over min. wage.

but knowing WalMart, they probably make <min. wage

t driver
August 21, 2005, 02:03 PM
Many things about this are going through my mind. I probably shoudn't add my comments, but can't help myself. ;)

The inital story leaves out way too much information. Based on societies current views, The information offered is too vague.

The following is strictly my thoughts and opinions.

The guy chose to: 1)steal what was not rightfully his. 2) refuse to cooperate with store security. 3) Get into a physical confrontation.
My opinion is he got what he earned. NOtice I said earned, not deserved.
That a "high profile" atty. saw it, or the pavement was a million degrees doesn't really matter.

As for penalty definitions. ("He didn't deserve this") There are always variables. i.e. The fine for petty theft may be $500. He died. While fitting the punishment to the crime or "proving" guilt is a noble idea. That part of it assumes he makes it to court. Getting there safely is his responsibility as much or more than his detainers responsibility. That means he must offer some cooperation.
Bottom line he was still a criminal.

I am shocked at the contempt for store security shown here. While some of these folks are much better at it than others, these folks have a job to do. It is always best to cooperate and let them do their job as quickly and easily as possible. Would I be offended if I was approached or wrongly detained? Absolutely. Would I put up a fight or make a scene? Absolutely NOT. Again, they are trying to do a job. One that is not often very popular.

Why blame the stores and security people for improper training? If people didn't steal or fight back there wouldn't be a problem. Caught is caught.

Would I shoot someone for trying to steal my stuff? No, but I would confront them. It is MY stuff. I worked hard for it and don't feel it is my obligation to give it to whomever decides they want to take it.
If they tried to come at me, then I would shoot them.

Bottom line. in my opinion, We as a society, need to be MUCH more courteous and tolerant of each other. That includes the driver that cut you off at the light, the mom with a crying baby and her arms full, the security person at the store, and even the guy on the cell phone in the restaurant. If we were all more polite we would all feel less hostility.

We also need to accept thet criminals are criminals. They deserve to be responded to as such. They don't live by the laws and courtisies that the rest of us do. I have little sympathy for them.

Vern Humphrey
August 21, 2005, 02:50 PM
"He said one of the men had Driver in a chokehold and had his knee in the back of his neck."

I know a little about choke holds from playing Judo for most of my life. I guess this is possible, but not very likely. A choke hold with your knee in the back of the neck??

It hurts the credability of the report.


The witness providing these details is a lawyer. :barf:

If we're not careful, we'll wind up like England, where an ederly man who had suffered multiple home invasions and beatings finally shot and wounded an attacker -- and was sent to prison because, as the judge said, he was "a danger to burglars."

GunGoBoom
August 21, 2005, 05:20 PM
And the lawyer did not even have to chase the ambulance that time

Correct. It's much easier just to go the ER and let the ambulances come to you. (or in this case, pure dumb luck upon it). Bottom line, if they weren't trained properly, AND if their actions caused his death, AND if their actions weren't reasonable, under the circumstances, then their master (Walmart) should pay, and pay dearly.

Joejojoba111
August 21, 2005, 06:50 PM
"He's a criminal, we treat criminals poorly so that people dont want to continue being criminals. People like this are a blight on society and we have no only a right but an obligation to keep them under control."

That's what I'm saying, it start with mistreating the people who are we feel least empathy with. Obviously no-one wants to side with the fat naked smelly shoplifter, who want's to be associated with that? But when he's dieing on the scalding tarmac, begging for his life, offering intelligent alternatives to being murdered "please, don't kill me, handcuff me to a stationary object, please..."

...Well, like I say I understand why people are OK with this, the man is repugnant. But you have to understand, you HAVE TO understand, that YOU'RE NEXT. Maybe not directly next, but if you give this situation a pass, sooner or later, your turn will come.

Which should concern me, but how can I give a flip anymore. Savings rates show so many people approaching retirement age with a net deficit in their savings, it's quite obvious the majority of the population lacks the ability to plan ahead, not precognition but simply simple foresight. What I'm trying to explain, what 10-year old kids used to understand about the nature of rights, requires simple foresight.

C96
August 21, 2005, 07:22 PM
I do think Mr. Quick covered this incident most succinctly with the thoughts :

"Once it reaches a certain level of intensity; stupidity IS a capital crime."

The perp worked hard to get what he got, he had several oppportunities to avoid going face down.

allan

Yooper
August 21, 2005, 08:07 PM
I don't know for certain what happened, it sounds like everyone involved did the wrong thing. The lawyers will come out of it well, though.

Double Naught Spy
August 21, 2005, 08:49 PM
You know, the general WalMart customer who doesn't steal and take flight doesn't have to deal with such circumstances. I know lots of folks who shop Walmart and who don't steal and don't scuffle with store security and nothing like this happens to them.

Joejojoba111
August 21, 2005, 10:25 PM
Come on, he's a thief. A shoplifter. He was tackled, and restrained. It could even be understood if he was given a bit of a beating, I think people could deal with that (since that's how we define right and wrong I guess).

But fat naked smelly man is dead, ah hell what do I care. What goes around comes around, I just hope that fate remembers I was against this sort of thing.

kbr80
August 21, 2005, 10:30 PM
Wow, just wow. I can understand wanting the criminal to get what he/she deserves, but folks come on. Once a person is in custody, in handcuffs, whoever placed said person in cuffs is responsible for that person health and welfare, period. It does not matter one bit what that person did, or is suspected of doing. The LP at Wal Marts screwed the pooch on this one.

No_Brakes23
August 21, 2005, 11:35 PM
I am shocked at the contempt for store security shown here. Maybe there is a very good reason why people by and large have this opinion of LP folks.

Just in my experience, most I have met might as well have Fails At Life written on their forehead, and many were LEO rejects. That is just my experience, but I think it is not abnormal. Take my local Target as an example. All the employees wear red tops and khaki bottoms except for their rather obvious LPS who dresses like LAPD. The guy looks like he just got dragged away from playing Dungeons & Dragons, or is upset because he is missing a "really important" guild meeting on Everquest. His pony-tail looks like a giant cat turd, and I can't help but laugh when it swings around as he paces the doorway.

No doubt, there are many good LP folk who look professional and do what they do, but I just don't seem to see any.

Perhaps you are aware of the high school and grammar school stereotype of the "Hall Monitor"? Very much the same sort of thing with Mall Ninjas.

Group9
August 21, 2005, 11:46 PM
We also remind readers that there is no proof he actually took anything.

Maybe, someone should remind readers that there is no proof that Wal-Mart employees chased him or detained him either, if that is the rule.

Buck Snort
August 22, 2005, 01:40 AM
Yeah Group9, right. And there's no proof that you even exist yet here's you post in this forum. Nobody here is demanding PROOF! Its just an incident reported in the newspaper. Lighten up.

c_yeager
August 22, 2005, 02:00 AM
Yeah Group9, right. And there's no proof that you even exist yet here's you post in this forum. Nobody here is demanding PROOF! Its just an incident reported in the newspaper. Lighten up.

You might consider reading the entire thread prior to responding. You would then have discovered that group 9 was pointing out the absurdity of a previous comment. A notion that you appear to agree with.

Joejojoba111
August 22, 2005, 03:03 AM
It's probably not a sound idea to cast aspersions on all LPs, bell curve probably applies just as well to them as anyone else, with some modifications. Perhaps the good ones aren't seen, because they're good.

For failing out of LEO tests, know a guy's brother who got 94 instead of the required 95, and they said 'buh-bye'. Worst part - he paid them cash just to take the test...:scrutiny: Several hundred $, paper must have gone up in price. :scrutiny: Damn carnies.

No_Brakes23
August 22, 2005, 03:59 AM
Perhaps the good ones aren't seen, because they're good.
More than likely that is true.

The bad ones stick out in any profession.

PCGS65
August 22, 2005, 05:01 AM
What a shame. This reminds me of the man from brazil that was killed in great britain.

cratz2
August 22, 2005, 05:58 PM
I think for sake of the argument here, we have to assume that he did take something, or at least the LP guys felt he took something, that was not paid for. But those of you saying that he deserved or earned to be held to the ground basically until he died might need to do some soul-searching or something. I mean, if your wives or mothers ran a stop sign and a police officer saw her do it, called for backup and a total of three officers handcuffed her, held her on a cool road and watched a cruiser roll over her a couple times and failed to stop that even though a civilian was telling them that it probably wasn't safe to let police cruisers roll over lawbreakers, you can't tell me that you wouldn't be going ballistic over it! I fail to see how this is radically different. One person did something bad, other folks stopped him and detained him and more than likely because of their actions, the law breaker dies.

I still say that unless he was hopped up on something, Walmart killed him.

We will obviously have to wait to hear more about the toxicology report before even attempting to pass judgement though...

Janitor
August 22, 2005, 06:10 PM
The LP at Wal Marts screwed the pooch on this one.
As the report is written, yes ... they screwed a very big pooch.
What a shame. This reminds me of the man from brazil that was killed in great britain.
Yup - no doubt that it's a shame. But last I read about it, the guy in the UK wasn't:

- fat
- naked
- stealing something from somebody
- killed through neglegence

... on second thought - there was neglegence involved in his death. But the people who popped seven caps in him weren't surprised by his death. Just by who they killed.

kbr80
August 22, 2005, 06:15 PM
Maybe, someone should remind readers that there is no proof that Wal-Mart employees chased him or detained him either, if that is the rule.


Hmm, maybe you missed this part.



Detective Robert T. Tonry, with the Homicide Division of the Harris County Sheriff's Department is investigating the death. He confirmed that Driver had struggled with Walmart loss prevention employees before being handcuffed and was not breathing a short time later.

Again, when you handcuff and detain someone, YOU are responsible for their welfare, thats how it is.

Janitor
August 22, 2005, 06:23 PM
Driver had struggled with Walmart loss prevention employees before being handcuffed
And I see this as an extremely key point -

He struggled until he was handcuffed. If the struggle stopped, why did they feel the need to kneel on him, face down on the asphalt?

GaryM
August 22, 2005, 06:44 PM
Wally world is gonna pay big for this one. When the top witness is a "high power" attorney and he was right there telling security to stop, well, Wally world is gonna pay big time.

Sounds to me like a fatally bad case of mall ninjas run amuck.

Ryder
August 22, 2005, 11:16 PM
How did he get in the store without a shirt? That isn't done around here. Where did he hide the diapers? Those are huge packages. BB guns and ammo laying out where anyone can access them without assistance? Something doesn't add up.

I don't see any details describing the circumstances prior him leaving the store. It's quite possible he paid for his goods at the sporting goods register and these superheros made a big goof.

I've run into a very few innocents that magnetically suck you in to wanting to hurt them. I've never hurt anybody that didn't deserve it yet I have felt the pull. It's an odd force that requires a strong willpower to resist. Can't imagine how much harder the need to justify your pay would make it.

No_Brakes23
August 25, 2005, 03:40 AM
I learned today that Target has a no chase policy.

Bet they are pretty glad about that right now.

BB guns and ammo laying out where anyone can access them without assistance? Even here in ultra careful Cali, the BBs and guns are where anyone can get to them.

And in Yuma, AZ, I saw folks in the Wal-Mart shirtless.

But I agree, where the hell do you hide all those diapers with no shirt?

Tharg
August 25, 2005, 04:47 AM
Gah....

not gonna read this whole thread...

Just as one must consider that had one not broke into said house and got shot...

one must consider that had one NOT decided to shoplift from said store and something REDICULOUS like this happen... it wouldn't have happened....

I mean seriously... i don't give private walmart wonder-cops the authority to do stuff... but at the same time... the wondercops aren't chasing down people who walked in and purchased someting normally... acted normally when the damn beeper thing goes off and they verify that yea you DID buy what just went beep etc... and walked out the door.... give responsibility where its due... if the person didn't commit the crime.. it woudln't be an issue how "harsh the wally world cops were".... once again ... not saying they might have done things differently... just saying the TRUE responsibility for that mans death lays on his own hands and bone and blood... cause if he'd been doing the right thing... it would never have happened...

I know its simply too obvious a fact to feed most of you.. but if the guy hadn't stole something - he wouldn't be dead.... if he'd had a job and bought the stuff he wanted to buy and walked out the door like a normal person... he wouldn't be dead... but i guess that is way TOO much of a leap of logic for most to handle....

:banghead:

J/Tharg!

Hawkmoon
August 25, 2005, 09:21 AM
I wasn't going to join this fray, but I will. I wish to remind all that the Constitution says we are innocent until proven guilty. This man did not have his day in court and has not been proven guilty.

How, indeed, did he conceal a package of diapers and a BB gun? Consider that perhaps he did NOT conceal them. Perhaps, like every other Wal-Mart shopper, he walked out the door with them. And perhaps (just "perhaps") the checkout clerk failed to deactivate the security dongle on the BB gun package, setting off the alarm at the exit.

Now, how many of you all who are gloating that the "thief" (unproven allegation) got what he deserved are among those who in other threads right here on The High Road have stated flat-out that when the alarm goes off, you WON'T stop, you WON'T let gramps at the door look in your bag, and you basically dare the LP guys to lay a hand on you?

Well, consider the possibility that that was also this guy's mindset. Isn't it at least possible that he didn't bother to conceal the stuff because, hey, he PAID for it. And maybe he was in a hurry and didn't feel like letting somone poke through the bags HE knew he had paid for.

Sound familiar, anyone?

All situations cut both ways. We all know those secuity tags are not flawless. Who here hasn't had at least one incident of having the alarm go off after paying for something? Those of you who adopt a militant anti-mall ninja attitude should consider that perhaps that guy who died on the hot pavement is you. And his widow will be doing exactly what you calim you would do -- suing the pants off the store.

The Constitution applies to everyone, people. Even fat guys with no shirt are entitled to due process.

GunGoBoom
August 25, 2005, 09:42 AM
one must consider that had one NOT decided to shoplift from said store and something REDICULOUS like this happen... it wouldn't have happened....

So if you are speeding, and a cop kills you - just decides to be judge, jury & executioner, then we ought to consider that had you not been breaking the law, you wouldn't be dead - too bad. Where does it end? ALLEGEDLY shoplift.

scbair
August 25, 2005, 09:55 AM
Well, OK; let's say a cop flashes his blue lights behind you. You KNOW you weren't speeding, didn't commit any other infraction,. all lights, etc. are working properly.

So . . . you refuse to stop; you continue to drive, distracted by the lights in your mirror. You veer off the roadway & are injured as Camaro meets culvert.

Gotta be the cop's fault, huh?

Some still unanswered questions:
1) Why were the security folks after him? (I mean, the exact circumstances; seen leaving without paying, alarm set off, etc.).

2) Exactly how did he resist? Try to flee, struggle to escape, swing at the pursuers, other?

3) What was his drug/alcohol level?

4) Any pre-existing conditions? I mean, let's consider: The alarm sounds as a guy walks pas it; security guard says, "Excuse me, but I need to inspect your receipt and the contents of your shopping bag." Customer has a bad heart and a fear of security guards; collapses and dies. We gonna blame the guard? (PLease don't cite the "felony murder" rule; it only applies to those engaged in commission of a felony. The security guard's actions in my example don't qualify.).

If you're gonna believe the newspaper and the attorney/witness, OK, but don't expect me to blindly accept their accounts.

entropy
August 25, 2005, 10:12 AM
Even fat guys with no shirt are entitled to due process.

I sure hope so. Or I'm SOL on most summer days. :p

atk
August 25, 2005, 12:29 PM
scbair,

Your analogy isn't correct. First, (unless I missed it) the security guards were not sworn law enforcement officers. The police officer has the legal priviledge of requiring you to pull over. Non LEOs cannot require that (application of force notwithstanding). Second, the accused theif didn't kill himself, which would be similar to running his own car off the road - the security guards killed him.

So, to improve your analogy, try this:


You're driving out of a private lot, and some security vehicle comes out after you, green lights flashing. You paid for your parking, and you know that there's no other reason the security guard may be following you, so you continue on your way.

The security vehicle chases you down, and spins your vehicle out, causing you to crash. You're injured, but it's not necessarially life threatening. But, the security guard doesn't want you to escape, so he gets out of his vehicle, and pins you in yours. Unfortunately for you, he pins you right on a sharp piece of glass, which digs into your chest, slipping neatly between your ribs.

There's a bystander who sees the blood, and pleads with the guards to call an ambulance. Or to at least let you off the glass. The guards refuse, continuing to pin you against the glass, and continuing to push it towards your lungs.


When you die of internal bleeding, or suffocation, is it your fault, or the security guard's fault?

docfubar
August 25, 2005, 12:34 PM
Some states DO have a thing called citizens arrest in which security guards can apprehend and detain a suspect.

People keep omparing security guards to LEO's but we all know they are different. If the Guards screwed up let them pay!!!!!!

I already said it sounds like they went overboard so I am not taking their side.

Tall Man
August 25, 2005, 12:37 PM
How did he get in the store without a shirt?
It can happen. I've seen it. I witnessed a shirtless, shoeless fellow attempt to make a purchase at ~12am. (Goodness knows why I was up at that hour...)

This chap put up quite a fuss when he was denied the ability to pay for his can of red beets. He left the store when every cashier began tracking his movements in a blatant manner via handheld radios.

This particular Wal-Mart was situated in, and catered to, the "gorgeous mosaic" portion of town. If the aforementioned event could happen, it will happen at that store. Probabilities matter. I am rarely disappointed when I bank on them.

TM

No_Brakes23
August 25, 2005, 12:41 PM
Who here hasn't had at least one incident of having the alarm go off after paying for something? Nearly every single time I go to Wally world the alarm goes off. I never stop. Screw 'em.

scbair
August 25, 2005, 12:43 PM
Sorry, atk, but a security guard (at least in the jurisdictions with which I am familiar) has as much right as any LEO to apprehend a shoplifter (and to use necessary force to do so).

By resisting (whether running/fighting or attempting to outrun a pursuing vehicle), some unpleasant outcomes become likely (injury in a fall, tackle, or traffic collision). Again, there are too many unanswered questions to decide who was at fault (or who was MOSTLY at fault), but a lot of crooks gat injured just being... well ... crooks! Then, of course, it's always someone else's fault.

I'm not trying to exonerate the security personnel, but I do know how hard it can be to subdue & apprehend a violently resisting "large" male suspect. I can think of a couple of instances that resulted in one on his face, hands twisted & cuffed, and me re-thinking my career choices. If any of those arrestees had made a committed effort to get back to their feet, I'd likely have protested vigorously!

But, of course, his family states he was a nice guy, and would never resist arrest (or steal, or . . .). The attorney/witness, I'm sure, would never take a position or make a statement for the primary purpose of gaining free publicity or notoriety! Even if he's describing what he observed, I question the accuracy. Until you've been in the middle of a violent apprehension, you really have no concept that some fancy wristlock/compliance hold just may NOT work exactly as you were taught it would (assuming you've had any real training).

kbr80
August 25, 2005, 12:44 PM
I mean seriously... i don't give private walmart wonder-cops the authority to do stuff... but at the same time... the wondercops aren't chasing down people who walked in and purchased someting normally... acted normally when the damn beeper thing goes off and they verify that yea you DID buy what just went beep etc... and walked out the door.... give responsibility where its due... if the person didn't commit the crime.. it woudln't be an issue how "harsh the wally world cops were".... once again ... not saying they might have done things differently... just saying the TRUE responsibility for that mans death lays on his own hands and bone and blood... cause if he'd been doing the right thing... it would never have happened...

So, he deserved it, interesting. He did the crime, not the LP fault that he is dead, no, it his fault for stealing. What a load of crap. Once someone is in custody, by what ever agency, LP or whatever, they are responsible for the welfare of the person in custody. Cause you see, that person, who did shoplift has the same rights that we do, the same rights that the LP guys do, the same rights that police officers do.

This "if he did not steal it, he would not have been killed is a crock. And it shows just how you look at Civil Rights, Hope, for everyones sake, that you are not in LE.

atk
August 25, 2005, 12:49 PM
docfubar,


Yes, there is citizen's arrest. However, I know of no law that requires a citizen to submit to another citizen, simply because I'm told to. On the other hand, I undertand that it's illegal to fail to "obey a lawful order" of a police officer.

Just trying to point out the disparity between police and security guards :)

atk
August 25, 2005, 12:55 PM
scbair,


I'm surprised that in South Carolina all security guards are given equal powers to LEOs. Can you cite the statute for me?

If they do, in fact, have the same legal authority as LEOs, and the guy knew they were after him, then, yes, he should have submitted. I just find it hard to believe the premise *grin*.


See, my problem is that I don't think they had the authority to detain him. If they don't have the authority, then everything after the unauthorized detention is unauthorized, and any complications are the responsibility of the detainers.

I don't know if your statement was aimed at me, but I haven't faulted them for how they detained the guy: I question their authority to do so.

The analogy correction was because security guards are different from LEOs, unless they are sworn LEOs, making any equality between security guards and LEOs incorrect (until you provide me with that citation :) )

JohnBT
August 25, 2005, 05:00 PM
Good thing they caught him in the parking lot and not a local diner because if they caught him in the local diner they might have held him face down on the grill and killed him. Oh, waitaminute, nevermind...

John

docfubar
August 25, 2005, 07:07 PM
atk: I don't know how it is in Texas but in ********** you can refer to
PC490.5 For how a merchant CAN LEGALLY detain a shoplifter.

490.5.(f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for
the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises.
(2) In making the detention a merchant, theater owner, or a person
employed by a library facility may use a reasonable amount of
nondeadly force necessary to protect himself or herself and to
prevent escape of the person detained or the loss of tangible or
intangible property.
(3) During the period of detention any items which a merchant or
theater owner, or any items which a person employed by a library
facility has probable cause to believe are unlawfully taken from the
premises of the merchant or library facility, or recorded on theater
premises, and which are in plain view may be examined by the
merchant, theater owner, or person employed by a library facility for
the purposes of ascertaining the ownership thereof.
(4) A merchant, theater owner, a person employed by a library
facility, or an agent thereof, having probable cause to believe the
person detained was attempting to unlawfully take or has taken any
item from the premises, or was attempting to operate a video
recording device within the premises of a motion picture theater
without the authority of the owner of the theater, may request the
person detained to voluntarily surrender the item or recording.
Should the person detained refuse to surrender the recording or item
of which there is probable cause to believe has been recorded on or
unlawfully taken from the premises, or attempted to be recorded or
unlawfully taken from the premises, a limited and reasonable search
may be conducted by those authorized to make the detention in order
to recover the item. Only packages, shopping bags, handbags or other
property in the immediate possession of the person detained, but not
including any clothing worn by the person, may be searched pursuant
to this subdivision. Upon surrender or discovery of the item, the
person detained may also be requested, but may not be required, to
provide adequate proof of his or her true identity.


The red highlighted area I made stand out, and as I said I do not support the actions of the LPs covered in the news article.

No_Brakes23
August 25, 2005, 07:38 PM
Damn, docfubar.

Just when I think Cali laws can't get anymore effed up, I discover some new fold.

I don't believe that I should be subject to that law, however.

I usually don't show the reciept when I leave places like Wal-Mat, Best Buy, Fry's, etc. If they have that big of a problem with theft, then they need to change their security. CostCo is very bad about this. I almost got into an altercation over toilet paper once.

DCR
August 25, 2005, 08:53 PM
Although that ********** statute AUTHORIZES a merchant to make a detention, the merchant is still not on the level of a sworn LEO. Note there is no law criminalizing the detainee from resisting the arrest.

Note also that the merchant is authorized to use REASONABLE force - and that's the question here: were the actions of the LP folks reasonable?

I submit they were not.....

I pity the LP who lays hands on me; they may get a forcible rectal return of the legally paid for merchandise, then I'll sue them and take their savings, future income, home, car, personal property and kids' video games.

c_yeager
August 26, 2005, 03:41 AM
Note there is no law criminalizing the detainee from resisting the arrest.

Actually its called "assault". In fact, assault in the furtherance or another crime (shoplifting) would become felony assault.

Merchants have as much right to secure their property as anyone else. If you have the right to run down some guy for stealing your wallet, then so do they. A number of states actually specify that any *necessary* amount of force to prevent the theft is legal. A lot of people dont realize that a private person often has more freedom to use force when protecting their property or property under their protection than law enforcement.

atk
August 26, 2005, 10:38 AM
Thank you for the clarification of CA law.

Now, since they have the authority to use reasonable force, (as DCR points out) the next question is, "was the force reasonable?" Or, maybe it's, "was there reason to believe force was necessary?"

Scanning over the thread, the article (post 1), I see no reason to believe force was necessary, or even that a robbery was taking place. The story begins with a man being chased out of a store.

I see no updates to the story.

So, we haven't even seen evidence that the man was actually robbing anyone. (For all those that will immediately assume that I am saying "there fore the security guards are EEEEEeeeeevilllllll", I'm not. Pointing out a lack of evidence doesn't imply proof of the opposite point of view. It's just a lack of evidence, which would require a reasonable person to withold judgement until evidence - either proving or disproving that which is in question - is provided). Maybe he was running to his car, because he didn't want to be caught out of air conditioning for too long. Maybe he got a phone call from his wife, at the hostpital, saying his daughter had just been admitted for a life threatening injury. Or, maybe he was threatened by one of the security guards, because the guard had a grudge against him. Or, maybe he was trying to escape with his highly valuable items.

But, I see no evidence of any of that. And I'd like to see evidence proving or disproving that there was an actual theft involved (I got the impression from the story that there was a _suspected_ theft, but I didn't catch where it stated there was _definitely_ a theft).


Does anyone have any updates - esp. from more reputable sources than a newspaper?

DCR
August 26, 2005, 03:20 PM
Good point, c_yeager - there are many crimes where an assault in furtherance of another crime is yet another, often elevated crime. Note the statutes that are titled "assault with intent to commit XXX"

I guess my point was that the detainee cannot be charged with resisting arrest by LP folks (or a citizen's arrest, for that matter), as an individual would if resisting an LEO, and hence the LP folks are in no way on the same level as LEO's because there is no duty to surrender to the commands of LP folks. If LP folks had the same authority as LEO's, then the resisting detainee could be charged with resisting/obstructing, an assault or battery (depending on your jurisdiction and the acts committed), and, if guilty, the underlying theft. Because LP are not LEO's, though, all the detainee could be charged with would be the underlying theft (if guilty) and any assault/battery - but the assault/battery on the LP could be a tricky charge to convict on, depending on the facts of the situation (did the LP identify themselves as such, would a reasonable person believe them, did they grab before they announced who they were, would a reasonable person have feared for his safety from the folks claiming - either at the time or after the fact - to be LP, etc. ad nauseum)

Good points you made, and thanks for keeping the thread interesting.

DCR

NineseveN
August 26, 2005, 03:48 PM
Wow, this thread is like that turd that just won't flush, I can't even believe some of the things I am reading here. What have you people done with the normal High Roaders?

:scrutiny:

The Real Hawkeye
August 26, 2005, 04:11 PM
Back in the 1980s I was an employee at Herman's Sporting Goods. Anyone remember that bunch? Anyway, management did not hire separate theft prevention people, but they did select a number of the larger and more athletic male employees to drill on security procedures and security codes. Several times we received such codes, and several times young punks would steal things, and we were supposed to stop them. I played along like I would do it, but this was just to keep my job. In reality I never tried hard to tackle anyone stealing from the store, and for reasons having to do with what happened here. Security people are given a lot more responsibility than authority, and that means you can get into deep trouble if something goes wrong. Besides, they weren't paying me enough to risk my neck tackling someone I knew nothing about, nor did we have the training and organization to do it properly.

After this, however, I worked as an attendant in a psychiatric hospital. I was "one of those men in the white suits who come and take you away." I worked the acute unit where all the real wackoes were. When they wanted their next dose of Thorazine, and the nurses wouldn't give it to them as often as they wanted it, these patients could get extremely violent. In this context, I had lots of backup and we were organized and trained in such a way as to be able to handle these people safely. In this situation, I was part of a team that actually did tackle lots of very dangerous individuals, and I never got hurt, nor did anyone we tackled get hurt. In this case, this was part of my job description, and I had the full and unambiguous backing of the hospital. Different situation, apparently, from what heppened here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wal-Mart security kills man who stole BB Gun and diapers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!