Man dies stealing from Walmart [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Man dies stealing from Walmart


stolenphot0
11-25-2012, 16:36
Man tried to steal 2 DVD players, employees go after him, he fights them, they sit on him. One placed him in a choke hold. Cops arrive, cuff him and realize he's non-responsive.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/alleged-walmart-thief-dies-during-confrontation/nTFNN/

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152281407450508&set=a.10150168103620508.428308.168815400507&type=1

and according to Facebook comments on the story, it's "discusting"

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152281407450508&set=a.10150168103620508.428308.168815400507&type=1&comment_id=17829916&offset=0&total_comments=62

Fastbear
11-25-2012, 16:39
One problem solved, another started.

Stang_Man
11-25-2012, 16:41
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Drain You
11-25-2012, 16:43
Alleged Walmart thief dies after confrontation



Did he allegedly die too?

stolenphot0
11-25-2012, 16:47
Yeah I noticed that too.

Gallium
11-25-2012, 17:06
Those employees are going to be in a world of hurt, and Walmart is going to spend at the least, six figures to make what was essentially a $500 problem at best go away.

There are a couple of guys here on GNG who often refer to the math... :) The numbers don't lie, which is why there is policy to not engage shoplifters in this manner.

IndyGunFreak
11-25-2012, 17:09
Those employees are going to be in a world of hurt, and Walmart is going to spend at the least, six figures to make what was essentially a $500 problem at best go away.

There are a couple of guys here on GNG who often refer to the math... :) The numbers don't lie, which is why there is policy to not engage shoplifters in this manner.

Probably not even $500....

The problem (as most LP can tell you) they get performance reviews, etc.. and if they aren't stopping people like this, it reflects negatively on them.

Like many jobs like this... Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

Detectorist
11-25-2012, 17:11
It is WalMart's policy for employees to not confront or chase or initiate any physical confrontation with anyone, including thieves.

I guarantee you that all three employees will soon be terminated, or even charged with a crime. Killing someone for shoplifting is not on the list of legal reasons for the use of deadly force.

WalMart is going to make the family of the thief rich.

Big House
11-25-2012, 17:11
Let them steal the products, we'll just pass the added costs on to our faithful customers, who do pay.

jpa
11-25-2012, 17:13
His family will sue walmart, he was just turning his life around, he was a good boy who was stealing dvd players to feed his family and one was for his 80 year old grandma and he was going to bring it to her right after he sang in his church choir and counseled troubled youth.

stolenphot0
11-25-2012, 17:17
I remember a few years ago Walmart basically said they wouldn't even press charges if the shoplifting wasn't over $50 or $100. Not sure if that policy is still enacted.


ETA: corrected to "shoplifting wasn't over"

beatcop
11-25-2012, 17:18
Ouch...that went bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokehold

Angry Fist
11-25-2012, 17:21
So, this bull**** about receipt checkers and such was wrong the whole time? I've been living a lie...

Bruce M
11-25-2012, 17:26
I wonder in the long term if Walmart stood behind it's employees in circumstances such as this if it would reduce the liability overall. My inexpert wild guess is that if the employees are fired that might make it more difficult for Walmart to defend itself.

I am sure the policy is designed to reduce the frequency of similar incidents.

Patchman
11-25-2012, 17:26
I can see the responding cops get blamed for this.

IndyGunFreak
11-25-2012, 17:29
His family will sue walmart, he was just turning his life around, he was a good boy who was stealing dvd players to feed his family and one was for his 80 year old grandma and he was going to bring it to her right after he sang in his church choir and counseled troubled youth.

Don't forget he just started a new job to.

IGF

Gallium
11-25-2012, 17:30
I can see the responding cops get blamed for this.


Was it a Walmart in Germany? :tbo:

IndyGunFreak
11-25-2012, 17:30
I wonder in the long term if Walmart stood behind it's employees in circumstances such as this if it would reduce the liability overall. My inexpert wild guess is that if the employees are fired that might make it more difficult for Walmart to defend itself.

Yeah, but Wal Mart will try to distance themselves and say "Look, we aren't responsible, these employees violated the policies we have in place"

It won't work, but that will be their argument.

IGF

Gallium
11-25-2012, 17:32
I can see the responding cops get blamed for this.


On a serious note, the folks with the deepest pockets and highest visibility will have lawsuits attempted against them 1st.

Walmart
Police
Ambulance (should have gotten their sooner, might be the claim)
Employees

and maybe even the manufacturer of the DVD

Is all of Walmart's LP in-house? If not, the LP firm will be sued too, ESPECIALLY IF they were not involved in the detention of the crook. That's their job, they are trained how to do it properly without killing folks. :crying::crying::crying:


:whistling:

Gallium
11-25-2012, 17:33
Yeah, but Wal Mart will try to distance themselves and say "Look, we aren't responsible, these employees violated the policies we have in place"

It won't work, but that will be their argument.

IGF


They already said that. In the news report they said they are investigating, as the officials are, to see what policies were violated.

Bruce H
11-25-2012, 17:33
The first person to file suit needs a twelve gauge shoved up their ass and a slug set off. Same for the attorney.

TK-421
11-25-2012, 17:36
Basically, Detectorist and jpa already said what I'd say. :rofl:

dango
11-25-2012, 17:42
With all the chances for stupid to alter my life , I have been extremely lucky .
This whole thing is going to get ugly and I'm not pointing fingers to any one . Prayers to all invloved on all sides .
Even the judge might lose sleep over this one.....!

true believer
11-25-2012, 17:42
Yeah, but Wal Mart will try to distance themselves and say "Look, we aren't responsible, these employees violated the policies we have in place"

It won't work, but that will be their argument.

IGF

yep...my wife works for a large drug store chain..a shift manager went out side the door after a shoplifter..she went out the door into the parking lot..the guy turned around and cut her face open with a box cutter..
she may not have a job. she could be fired!!
:steamed:

jbailey8
11-25-2012, 17:43
Alleged Walmart thief dies after confrontation



Did he allegedly die too?I'm eating dinner out with my wife and I laughed uncontrollably when I read this.

Walmart.... Not F-ing around!

jdavionic
11-25-2012, 17:45
It is WalMart's policy for employees to not confront or chase or initiate any physical confrontation with anyone, including thieves.

I guarantee you that all three employees will soon be terminated, or even charged with a crime. Killing someone for shoplifting is not on the list of legal reasons for the use of deadly force.

WalMart is going to make the family of the thief rich.

I think you're likely right about the termination. However the use of deadly force is questionable as to whether it was done to prevent him from trying to hurt or kill one of them. Just don't know the details...yet.

samurairabbi
11-25-2012, 17:48
His family will sue walmart, he was just turning his life around, he was a good boy who was stealing dvd players to feed his family and one was for his 80 year old grandma and he was going to bring it to her right after he sang in his church choir and counseled troubled youth.

... and he was a victim of unwarranted profiling, since he MIGHT have intended to actually pay for them, realized he left his wallet out in the parking lot, and took the stuff with him so some OTHER customer didn't filch it.

Jon_R
11-25-2012, 17:51
It probably cost Wall Mart more in the labor for the employees to chase the person and then for them and the manager to then deal with the ambulance and police officers than the cost of the two DVD players. Pay plus fringe for three employees for at least couple of hours to sort it out. Maybe $15 per hour so about $100 plus a couple hours of the Manager on duty time so probably another $100. In the end they still lost the DVD players. Sure they are evidence....

Probably not even $500....

The problem (as most LP can tell you) they get performance reviews, etc.. and if they aren't stopping people like this, it reflects negatively on them.

Like many jobs like this... Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

Jon_R
11-25-2012, 17:57
Customers is their only revenue stream so yes but customers will also pay for the settlement to the family or the premiums on their insurance for such things. Or at least until raising their prices to cover these no longer makes them competitive and they go bankrupt. Probably take a while.

Let them steal the products, we'll just pass the added costs on to our faithful customers, who do pay.

Patchman
11-25-2012, 18:17
I can see the responding cops get blamed for this.

Was it a Walmart in Germany? :tbo:

Oh, no, it couldn't be in Germany.

I was informed by a very well informed and unbiased person (he's a very, very rich self-made gentleman in the medical device field, don't you know) that the German police would NEVER do anything they were not taught to do. And I'm pretty sure the German police academy would NEVER teach their recruits to allow a BG (or suspected BG) to die while in their custody .

sombunya
11-25-2012, 18:32
Those employees are going to be in a world of hurt, and Walmart is going to spend at the least, six figures to make what was essentially a $500 problem at best go away.

There are a couple of guys here on GNG who often refer to the math... :) The numbers don't lie, which is why there is policy to not engage shoplifters in this manner.

Six figures for Wallymart is a mosquito bite.

Besides, they probably have a team of lawyers on staff already.

Line Rider
11-25-2012, 19:00
I worked at a Wal-Mart in 1983-1984. We had offically a policy of not confronting shoplifters. That being said, the store manager would give anyone who caught a shoplifter a day off with pay.

TK-421
11-25-2012, 19:05
... and he was a victim of unwarranted profiling, since he MIGHT have intended to actually pay for them, realized he left his wallet out in the parking lot, and took the stuff with him so some OTHER customer didn't filch it.

If he left his wallet in his car, he should've taken his items up to customer service and asked them to hold onto them for him so that someone didn't take them while he went out to his car.

I think you're likely right about the termination. However the use of deadly force is questionable as to whether it was done to prevent him from trying to hurt or kill one of them. Just don't know the details...yet.

It's entirely possible that the use of deadly force was accidental. However, I don't know any details about what happened in the struggle, so it's just as likely that it was intentional, I don't know for sure.

Gallium
11-25-2012, 19:14
If he left his wallet in his car, he should've taken his items up to customer service and asked them to hold onto them for him so that someone didn't take them while he went out to his car...



Maybe you should wait until you've had your sarcasm shots before you start engaging in posting? :faint:

Gallium
11-25-2012, 19:22
Six figures for Wallymart is a mosquito bite.

Besides, they probably have a team of lawyers on staff already.




One lie foisted on the public is about any publicity being good publicity.In this instance this is very bad publicity (from their perspective).



A six figure settlement does not mean their total cost is six figures - even with in house counsel



A six figure settlement compared to a $500 loss is a possible 500,000:500 = 1000 times multiplier. Walmart not only analyzes raw numbers, they are also big on margins, leveraging and returns.



It is almost always these seemingly one-off incidents that change the nature of how things are done. Examples:

1. Stampede at a NY Walmart last year (or year before) resulting in the death of a WM employee caused a change in policy here (NY) on how much security staff is on hand for Black Friday sales. They also have to use barricades/etc. So the death of an associate in addition to having that upfront cost of cutting a check for settlement also has a long term ripple effect on policy.


2. Two kids in Columbine forever changed how police officers respond to active shooting incidents.

TK-421
11-25-2012, 19:33
Maybe you should wait until you've had your sarcasm shots before you start engaging in posting? :faint:


Now why would I do something silly like that and ruin the fun you have when you make stupid posts like that? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

TheExplorer
11-25-2012, 19:39
I worked at a Wal-Mart in 1983-1984. We had offically a policy of not confronting shoplifters. That being said, the store manager would give anyone who caught a shoplifter a day off with pay.

That's what I thought. It's the same for convenient stores. Hand it over/let them take it and call the cops. No need to be superman.

Berto
11-25-2012, 19:57
On the other hand, it's all speculation, so maybe sleeping this loser out saved society a crapload of pain/suffering/$$$ in the long run.

Patchman
11-25-2012, 20:08
That's what I thought. It's the same for convenient stores. Hand it over/let them take it and call the cops. No need to be superman.

Here's my question: If it's not important enough/no big deal to the store itself, then why bother reporting it to the police?

HollowHead
11-25-2012, 20:19
Here's my question: If it's not important enough/no big deal to the store itself, then why bother reporting it to the police?

It's a very big deal, just not a big enough of one to ask your employees to risk their lives over. HH

Caver 60
11-25-2012, 20:21
I remember a few years ago Walmart basically said they wouldn't even press charges if the shoplifting wasn't over $50 or $100. Not sure if that policy is still enacted.


ETA: corrected to "shoplifting wasn't over"

Around here I see police reports in the paper at least once a week or so about someone being arrested for stealing pocket change items (15 to 30 dollars worth, and up) from our local W/M.

jbailey8
11-25-2012, 20:35
I remember a few years ago Walmart basically said they wouldn't even press charges if the shoplifting wasn't over $50 or $100. Not sure if that policy is still enacted.


ETA: corrected to "shoplifting wasn't over"I was at Walmart a couple months ago and saw a man in jeans and t shirt running out of the store followed by a woman that worked there running just behind him. I calmly walked out behind them just in time to see that the man was loss prevention and he was chasing some skinny punk teenager that had stolen automotive light bulbs. The guy retrieved the property and the kid was on his way. They didn't even call the police. Their was no physical contact at all just talk, "Give us the merchandise or go to jail" type stuff. After the kid left I joked with the guy that I thought ***** was about to "get real" we laughed and that was it.

mr.scott
11-25-2012, 20:42
On the other hand, it's all speculation, so maybe sleeping this loser out saved society a crapload of pain/suffering/$$$ in the long run.
Well Walmart is eating the cost and not the tax payer.

samurairabbi
11-25-2012, 20:43
Now why would I do something silly like that and ruin the fun you have when you make stupid posts like that? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Now that we are all in operational sarcasm mode, permit me to point out how you distorted my original post.

I hypothesized that he had left his wallet in the PARKING LOT. You changed that to leaving it in his CAR. That is the kind of distorted Deconstructionist thinking one would expect from a member of the sexist racist bloodsucking capitalist leech mentality: you presume ALL walmartians are rich enough to own cars! You must now expiate your guilt over your stereotypical reactionary mindset by buying me a Glock of my choice! (I, out of my generosity of spirit, will pop for the FFL fees.)

Foxtrotx1
11-25-2012, 20:43
The first person to file suit needs a twelve gauge shoved up their ass and a slug set off. Same for the attorney.

You mean they shouldn't sue for wrongful death?

lunarspeak
11-25-2012, 20:44
whether the dude was guilty or not of shoplifting he didnt desrve to be killed...unlike some of you armchair comandos , i had a short stint in BJJ and competed at a dozen or so tournaments untill i hurt my knee..getting choked out is not painless or quick...and once your out you go limp and still have several seconds before death.

im thinking the wal-mart employee should be charged with murder.

Lampshade
11-25-2012, 20:52
........

NDCent
11-25-2012, 20:55
Note to self:

Walmart is not the place to practice MMA skills.

Berto
11-25-2012, 21:00
whether the dude was guilty or not of shoplifting he didnt desrve to be killed...unlike some of you armchair comandos , i had a short stint in BJJ and competed at a dozen or so tournaments untill i hurt my knee..getting choked out is not painless or quick...and once your out you go limp and still have several seconds before death.

im thinking the wal-mart employee should be charged with murder.

I'd agree stealing from wallyworld shouldn't get you killed, but stealing from wally world, getting chased and fighting with LP or employees ...then getting slept out, TFB. Your fault.
Don't steal from people, live a longer happier life.

Bruce H
11-25-2012, 21:01
You mean they shouldn't sue for wrongful death?

No. There shouldn't be a reward for being a thief.

HollowHead
11-25-2012, 21:04
No. There shouldn't be a reward for being a thief.

I must have missed the part about his conviction. HH

countrygun
11-25-2012, 21:07
whether the dude was guilty or not of shoplifting he didnt desrve to be killed...unlike some of you armchair comandos , i had a short stint in BJJ and competed at a dozen or so tournaments untill i hurt my knee..getting choked out is not painless or quick...and once your out you go limp and still have several seconds before death.

im thinking the wal-mart employee should be charged with murder.

I got the feeling he wasn't being choked out because he was stealing, I doubt that is SOP. I think it might be connected to his choice to fight. That's just a hunch mind you

:whistling:

Foxtrotx1
11-25-2012, 21:08
No. There shouldn't be a reward for being a thief.

You're missing the part where a man who had yet to be convicted of anything was slain.

jbailey8
11-25-2012, 21:11
You're missing the part where a man who had yet to be convicted of anything was slain.If I shoot and kill a burglar in my home, should I be charged with murder because they hadn't been convicted of burglary?

certifiedfunds
11-25-2012, 21:12
He was already dead when we sat on him! Swear!

Foxtrotx1
11-25-2012, 21:17
If I shoot and kill a burglar in my home, should I be charged with murder because they hadn't been convicted of burglary?

:faint:

Apples, meet Oranges.

Self Defense is a different animal.

countrygun
11-25-2012, 21:18
You're missing the part where a man who had yet to be convicted of anything was slain.

You have just ruled out any legal self-defense claims.

"You can't shoot him until he has been convicted of killing you"

:upeyes:

HollowHead
11-25-2012, 21:22
If I shoot and kill a burglar in my home, should I be charged with murder because they hadn't been convicted of burglary?

How do you know he was a burglar? HH

lunarspeak
11-25-2012, 21:25
If I shoot and kill a burglar in my home, should I be charged with murder because they hadn't been convicted of burglary?

if you just jump out and shoot him yes,self defense means to defend your self from harm or death..if you come home and you shoot him while he is walking out your house with a tv in his arms then you may and prob will be arrested for murder

chances of being convicted will be low,,all you need is one person on the jury to feel how you do but your still going to spend thousands in legal fees and id bet a murder case would be a no bail situation.

jbailey8
11-25-2012, 21:27
:faint:

Apples, meet Oranges.

Self Defense is a different animal.That's not apples and oranges, it was exactly my point. What was the value of the items? Was it a felony? If not, do the employees know that it wasn't a felony? It all goes to mindset in the moment. If the man(criminal) is desperate enough to commit a felony and lose all his rights, then how do I know he isn't desperate enough to try and take my life? They probably had no right chasing him out of the store, but they did. So, now their are more questions. Did he get combative? Etc...

Foxtrotx1
11-25-2012, 21:31
That's not apples and oranges, it was exactly my point. What was the value of the items? Was it a felony? If not, do the employees know that it wasn't a felony? It all goes to mindset in the moment. If the man(criminal) is desperate enough to commit a felony and lose all his rights, then how do I know he isn't desperate enough to try and take my life? They probably had no right chasing him out of the store, but they did. So, now their are more questions. Did he get combative? Etc...

Stealing from walmart and being smothered to death by employees attempting to detain you is quite a bit different than shooting a man invading your home.

CanMan
11-25-2012, 21:31
Too bad he died :(

Had he survived he would have been guaranteed employment at the Walmart of his choice....striking workers & all that.

jbailey8
11-25-2012, 21:44
Stealing from walmart and being smothered to death by employees attempting to detain you is quite a bit different than shooting a man invading your home. Maybe my comparison was a little off, but they didn't beat him to death and I don't think they meant to kill him. I think they were a little (or a lot) overzealous and it got out of hand while attempting a "citizens arrest."

HollowHead
11-25-2012, 21:48
Maybe my comparison was a little off, but they didn't beat him to death and I don't think they meant to kill him. I think they were a little (or a lot) overzealous and it got out of hand while attempting a "citizens arrest."

Tell that to the jury. HH

lunarspeak
11-25-2012, 22:25
Maybe my comparison was a little off, but they didn't beat him to death and I don't think they meant to kill him. I think they were a little (or a lot) overzealous and it got out of hand while attempting a "citizens arrest." we dont know what happend at this point..he may have been tapping out and begging for mercy..

if they were choking him and he pulled out a knife and stabbed the employee would that have been self defense?????

this is why companys dont want you to go and chase after shoplifters, now several people will lose thier jobs,bad press,lawsuit..

Foxtrotx1
11-25-2012, 22:44
Maybe my comparison was a little off, but they didn't beat him to death and I don't think they meant to kill him. I think they were a little (or a lot) overzealous and it got out of hand while attempting a "citizens arrest."

Which is why they may very well have a case for manslaughter and the family has an awesome chance in civil court.

Calico Jack
11-25-2012, 22:47
The employees violated company policy(*) and if I was a betting man... I'd bet the farm on their termination.


(*)That's if the report is accurate.

Ohio Copper
11-26-2012, 01:50
How about the simple Basic fact that if this jackass weren't stealing, he'd still be alive?

Stuff like this sickens me. And not because a turd died either.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

G26S239
11-26-2012, 02:23
whether the dude was guilty or not of shoplifting he didnt desrve to be killed...unlike some of you armchair comandos , i had a short stint in BJJ and competed at a dozen or so tournaments untill i hurt my knee..getting choked out is not painless or quick...and once your out you go limp and still have several seconds before death.

im thinking the wal-mart employee should be charged with murder.

Barring evidence that they intended to commit a felony and killed him in the process of doing so that is ridiculous.

A middle aged man stealing two DVD players sounds very likely to be a career scumbag with prior felony convictions.

Wrecking the lives of 3 decent people who tried to stop a scumbag from stealing is a real crappy idea. The world is better off without this thieving POS in it.

Gallium
11-26-2012, 03:01
The existence of those Walmart employees, from a fiscal perspective, would not have changed in any way if the thief succeeded with his heist. Yeah, I wish as he was fleeing the store, with no one in pursuit of him, a falling piece of space debris would have pancaked him on the pavement but spared the DVDs.

When you have nothing at stake personally, ethically or professionally, you might want to make a quick assessment of how committed you wish to become. Unfortunately for them, they didn't stop and do the "What if". Their actions are going to cost them, and their employer.

On a personal level, if they are as they will claim decent human beings, they will have to sleep knowing they killed another person. Outside of the (awesome) people in GNG/GT, most folks are not mentally prepared to deal with that reality. NONE of those three folks is thinking now that their actions were worth it, and if it happened to any of us, or any of you (wherein the theft occurred against WM) neither would any of you.

If I was a shopper on non LP employee at WM, I'd want to GO HOME (just like cops want to) at the end of my shift or shopping excursion. I'd much rather not spend 1-2-8hrs at a police station dealing with a homicide subsequent to a theft in WM. You step foot in my house uninvited and steal my stuff and there is a high probability you're going to get hurt (physical force) so I can convince you to leave. If I am a 3rd party in a big box store, absent any threat of deadly force...not so much.

Wayward Bound
11-26-2012, 04:08
I believe those were the $19 DVD's and the guy had 2 of them.

Gallium
11-26-2012, 04:18
I believe those were the $19 DVD's and the guy had 2 of them.


:faint:

I should go out more. DVD players are $19??? I paid $200 for mine (recorder) about 5-8 years ago.

beatcop
11-26-2012, 05:26
Can't say what happened outside, but the bottom line is no one deserves to get killed for shoplifting. There is obviously more to the story, but some here just want to connect the dots and advocate killing someone for shoplifting. The guy may be a turd, but I don't want to live in the middle east...no cutting off hands for minor stuff, etc.

More than likely it was the ignorant application of a hold designed to cut-off blood or air, depending on the technique. Who knows what the clerks have said. Maybe they invoked some self defense, but I'm guessing it was an unintentional death...otherwise known as manslaughter. Unless there's some mitigating factor, most States say "reasonable physical force" to recover/protect property. The lawsuit will probably be a slam dunk.

Baba Louie
11-26-2012, 05:57
If the employees in question did not follow company protocol, they're toast and the company will pay a little something to someone.

If the employees in question did follow company protocol, (I doubt if choke holds or bodily compression are written in black on white, but I could be wrong) the company will pay a big something to someone and I'd assume the employees are toast.

Alleged thief made a decision, the consequences of which I doubt he foresaw, he is now cold toast. Employees in queston made a decision, consequences of which I doubt they foresaw. Burnt toast.

Company will lose a little moola which might affect the Store Manager, maybe Regional Manager, but certainly not the bigwigs in Bentonville, Bejing, Gstaad or wherever they're hanging out at for the holidays. I assume they'll have Toast, crusts cut off, with caviar.

Line Rider
11-26-2012, 06:16
I won't be surprised to see the store employees and the private guard charged with manslaughter. :wow:

So, a civil suit should be the least of their worries.

Jon_R
11-26-2012, 06:21
:faint:

I should go out more. DVD players are $19??? I paid $200 for mine (recorder) about 5-8 years ago.


Plenty of players under $40.

Dennisr1977
11-26-2012, 06:25
Maybe my comparison was a little off, but they didn't beat him to death and I don't think they meant to kill him. I think they were a little (or a lot) overzealous and it got out of hand while attempting a "citizens arrest."

Drunk drivers don't mean to kill people either, but they still need to be held accountable for their actions.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Foxtrotx1
11-26-2012, 06:36
Barring evidence that they intended to commit a felony and killed him in the process of doing so that is ridiculous.

A middle aged man stealing two DVD players sounds very likely to be a career scumbag with prior felony convictions.

Wrecking the lives of 3 decent people who tried to stop a scumbag from stealing is a real crappy idea. The world is better off without this thieving POS in it.

People with good intentions make really bad mistakes. They should have to pay for those mistakes.

I wouldn't expect to get away with manslaughter.

686Owner
11-26-2012, 06:43
Those employees are going to be in a world of hurt, and Walmart is going to spend at the least, six figures to make what was essentially a $500 problem at best go away.

There are a couple of guys here on GNG who often refer to the math... :) The numbers don't lie, which is why there is policy to not engage shoplifters in this manner.

Don't they have a law in some states, that if you die while you were committing a felony, too bad?

Gallium
11-26-2012, 06:50
Don't they have a law in some states, that if you die while you were committing a felony, too bad?


Yeah. Lots of states say that if you, your accomplices, a victim or an innocent 3rd party die as a direct result of your felonious act, you may be on the hook for that.

I don't think his actions (the theft) were a felony, unless he'd been previously PNGed (trespassed) there.

Didn't sleep last night, much less at a Holiday Inn.

686Owner
11-26-2012, 06:51
People with good intentions make really bad mistakes. They should have to pay for those mistakes.

I wouldn't expect to get away with manslaughter.

5 years probation.

Ohio Copper
11-26-2012, 07:01
Yeah. Lots of states say that if you, your accomplices, a victim or an innocent 3rd party die as a direct result of your felonious act, you may be on the hook for that.

I don't think his actions (the theft) were a felony, unless he'd been previously PNGed (trespassed) there.

Didn't sleep last night, much less at a Holiday Inn.

Fighting with somebody to get away at least here in Ohio turns it to robbery.


I just recently sent a man to prison (lengthy CCH) for punching store personnel while fleeing with a tv out the front doors. I caught him while doing a private property crash. Needless to say, he's not a very lucky guy.

He was charged with robbery and pled to it.


It may be an enhance blue offense.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

beatcop
11-26-2012, 07:50
Stealing something with force/threat of force is a robbery.

Someone may get charged if they struggle during the flight, but it will prob not stick. A guy trying to run from a shoplifting isn't going to constitute a fleeing "robber".

Use of force 101:

If you trip during me stopping you and crack your head on the curb and die...no issue. Reasonable force...accidental.

If your arm breaks....during me stopping you because you are brittle...no issue. Reasonable force...accidental.

If I put a move on you that is known to cause serious physical injury or death and it occurs...problem.

If you aren't indemnified by statute, some of this stuff isn't worth it. You can still lose a lawsuit and end up being rendered broke for the rest of your life even if you are only making 8/hr at Chinamart.

Bruce M
11-26-2012, 09:46
...
im thinking the wal-mart employee should be charged with murder.

I'm thinking that the people who actually make these decisons may have a slightly different opinion based on, for instance, the elements of murder.

People with good intentions make really bad mistakes. They should have to pay for those mistakes.

I wouldn't expect to get away with manslaughter.

I am not sure that what happened rose to the level of manslaughter either.

At least here if they were engaged in lawful activity ( attempting to apprehend a shoplifter is lawful) and if they used usual ordinary caution and had no criminal intent it might not rise to the level of manslaughter.

I guess the big question is what is usual and ordinary when confronted with a shoplifter who is offering violence, which in turn, may be a robbery.


Don't they have a law in some states, that if you die while you were committing a felony, too bad?


And here taking for property with violence may be robbery and when someone dies during a felony, like a robbery is, there is a presumption that felonious activity so dangerous and so depraved that if anyone happens to die during the event, the subject is presumed responsible as he should know that there is a high probability of danger, injury, and death.


If I had to guess, unless there was something done that by the employees that was especially unusual, there is more civil liability than criminal liability.

My guess is that stores that firmly stand behind the employees who apprehend shoplifters put the employees in a slightly better situation than do those that do not.

Gallium
11-26-2012, 12:18
Security guard has been fired. News is saying he administered the choke/strangulation hold. I wonder if he was trained on CPR...

skeeter1959
11-26-2012, 12:44
Rut-ro.....Wally World gonna write a big check to the thieving bastage's family.

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 12:54
Rut-ro.....Wally World gonna write a big check to the thieving bastage's family.

It's in the budget already


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 12:55
Let them steal the products, we'll just pass the added costs on to our faithful customers, who do pay.

And now the family will sue, receive a 6 or 7 figure settlement, and the costs will still be passed on to the customers who do pay.

Cali-Glock
11-26-2012, 12:56
Stores have no legal authority to detain a non-felony suspected shoplifter. Period. The one possible exception would be a sworn law-enforcement officer working security while in uniform.

Detain by force resulting in death? Ugly. Those employees are looking at jail time and WalMart is looking at a significant settlement with the shoplifters heirs.

countrygun
11-26-2012, 12:59
And now the family will sue, receive a 6 or 7 figure settlement, and the costs will still be passed on to the customers who do pay.

Just like the costs from shoplifting?

Don't blame the corporation, who is also a victim, blame the theives

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 13:06
Just like the costs from shoplifting?

Don't blame the corporation, who is also a victim, blame the theives

Who said anything about blame?

Regardless of who is to blame, the customers are going to end up paying for it. Intelligent policy would be to minimize the damage to customers.

countrygun
11-26-2012, 13:10
Who said anything about blame?

Regardless of who is to blame, the customers are going to end up paying for it. Intelligent policy would be to minimize the damage to customers.

So, where on the continuum between letting people steal whatever they want and shooting them on the spot, is the perfect spot to save the customers the damage?

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 13:12
Who said anything about blame?

Regardless of who is to blame, the customers are going to end up paying for it. Intelligent policy would be to minimize the damage to customers.

I dunno. Seems like the shareholders pay for this and most shoplifting costs


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

devildog2067
11-26-2012, 13:15
So, where on the continuum between letting people steal whatever they want and shooting them on the spot, is the perfect spot to save the customers the damage?

Where the liability ends up is ultimately a judicial and legislative decision. I'd be in favor of laws preventing a family from suing in cases like these.

However, until the system changes, it is what it is. Smart policy is designed to maximize profits and minimize potential liability.

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 13:24
Stores have no legal authority to detain a non-felony suspected shoplifter. Period.

Is that true in all jurisdictions?

Calico Jack
11-26-2012, 13:25
Stores have no legal authority to detain a non-felony suspected shoplifter. Period. The one possible exception would be a sworn law-enforcement officer working security while in uniform.

Detain by force resulting in death? Ugly. Those employees are looking at jail time and WalMart is looking at a significant settlement with the shoplifters heirs.

You sure about that?

countrygun
11-26-2012, 13:30
Where the liability ends up is ultimately a judicial and legislative decision. I'd be in favor of laws preventing a family from suing in cases like these.

However, until the system changes, it is what it is. Smart policy is designed to maximize profits and minimize potential liability.

Good idea IMO. Anytime you take physical control, or even non-physical control, of another person there is a possibility of unintended consequences. There is very little that can be done about theft without effecting control over a suspect. It is a risk both sides take, but it seems unreasonable to allow a theif's actions to result in a bonanza for their next of kin. Just, if I may point out, it would be equally unreasonable to allow store employees a free hand based on suspicion.

Calico Jack
11-26-2012, 13:31
Where the liability ends up is ultimately a judicial and legislative decision. I'd be in favor of laws preventing a family from suing in cases like these.

However, until the system changes, it is what it is. Smart policy is designed to maximize profits and minimize potential liability.

That is the main objective of loss prevention. Store level LP's (the one's who deal with primarily external theft) tend to be geared more towards recovering every piece of stolen merchandise at all costs, but LP management understands that it is a numbers game.

Cali-Glock
11-26-2012, 14:06
You sure about that?

Plenty of people argue otherwise... But near as I can tell if you detain someone that is kidnapping.

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 14:11
Shop keepers privilege


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 14:16
Plenty of people argue otherwise... But near as I can tell if you detain someone that is kidnapping.

Not necessarily in Pennsylvania:

Under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. ß 3929(d), peace officers, merchants and agents and employees of the merchant are permitted to detain an individual they suspect has shoplifted. The detainer must have probable cause to believe the theft has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur in order to detain the suspect. The law requires the detainer to act in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable time of the alleged shoplifting.

Gallium
11-26-2012, 14:27
Is that true in all jurisdictions?

No. That **** would never fly in casinos, for example.

Gallium
11-26-2012, 14:29
Stores have no legal authority to detain a non-felony suspected shoplifter. Period. The one possible exception would be a sworn law-enforcement officer working security while in uniform.


Not true in NY, NJ, CT or PA. I'm almost certain it's also not true in MA.


And I don't think it's true in TX


Many times detention - even temporarily is required to determine if a theft has taken place, and even then, if the theft of the item rises to the level of a felony.

So I think you are wrong.

Cali-Glock
11-26-2012, 15:14
Not true in NY, NJ, CT or PA. I'm almost certain it's also not true in MA.


And I don't think it's true in TX


Many times detention - even temporarily is required to determine if a theft has taken place, and even then, if the theft of the item rises to the level of a felony.

So I think you are wrong.

Thanks for the education!

Apparently several states have some screwy laws: even with such laws anyone attempting to use them leave themselves open to a ton of liability.

What is reasonable suspicion? Is refusing to show a receipt when exiting WalMart reasonable suspicion?

countrygun
11-26-2012, 15:21
Thanks for the education!

Apparently several states have some screwy laws: even with such laws anyone attempting to use them leave themselves open to a ton of liability.

What is reasonable suspicion? Is refusing to show a receipt when exiting WalMart reasonable suspicion?

Because you don't agree with them, the lawakers in other States are "screwy"?

Oh, wait. I see where you are from:upeyes::upeyes:

czsmithGT
11-26-2012, 15:22
What is reasonable suspicion? Is refusing to show a receipt when exiting WalMart reasonable suspicion?

No it isn't

Gallium
11-26-2012, 15:42
...
Apparently several states have some screwy laws: even with such laws anyone attempting to use them leave themselves open to a ton of liability.
...


I respectfully disagree with your assessment. The fundamental thing here is, someone is known to be, or suspected of being in possession of your (operator or agent of the location) property via theft. There should be very few restrictions that prohibit you (me) from determining if indeed you are in possession of my property.

Bruce M
11-26-2012, 16:26
Stores have no legal authority to detain a non-felony suspected shoplifter. Period. The one possible exception would be a sworn law-enforcement officer working security while in uniform.

Detain by force resulting in death? Ugly. Those employees are looking at jail time and WalMart is looking at a significant settlement with the shoplifters heirs.

Plenty of people argue otherwise... But near as I can tell if you detain someone that is kidnapping.

I am uncertain that it true even in California and certainly not in many jurisdictions.


Is that true in all jurisdictions?

You sure about that?

Let's add Florida to the list of places that allow a shopkeeper or his agent to detain a shoplifter with very limited liability...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0812/Sections/0812.015.html

"(3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, ...who has probable cause to believe ...a retail theft, ...., has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time.... "

"(c) The taking into custody and detention by a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchantís employee, .., if done in compliance with all the requirements of this subsection, shall not render such law enforcement officer, merchant, merchantís employee,.., criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention."

G26S239
11-26-2012, 16:58
Stores have no legal authority to detain a non-felony suspected shoplifter. Period. The one possible exception would be a sworn law-enforcement officer working security while in uniform.

Not according to this source http://www.burnhambrown.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.contentDetail&id=8739

Burnham and Brown have law offices in Oakland CA and Reno NV so they are probably better qualified than you are to determine application of the law in this case.

Kilrain
11-26-2012, 16:59
I am uncertain that it true even in California and certainly not in many jurisdictions.


A merchant can detain a shoplifter in California. See PC 490.5.

PBR Sailor
11-26-2012, 17:08
A thief died? So what! What else do we have to talk about?

norm357
11-26-2012, 17:44
I hope this is WalMarts new policy!

certifiedfunds
11-26-2012, 18:14
I hope this is WalMarts new policy!

It would go a long way toward solving their shrink problem.

PBR Sailor
11-26-2012, 19:38
I am going to do all my shopping at WalMart from now on.

NEOH212
11-26-2012, 20:50
I wonder if this could be considered a, "Occupational related Death?"

:whistling:

The only shame of this is that his POS family will get $$$ from Wally World for his crime.

Only in America!

:faint:

Cali-Glock
11-26-2012, 22:15
Not according to this source http://www.burnhambrown.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.contentDetail&id=8739

Burnham and Brown have law offices in Oakland CA and Reno NV so they are probably better qualified than you are to determine application of the law in this case.

I agree they are far better qualified than me in this arena... quite interesting to read what California law apparently says.

So the GT crowd thinks this is a good thing?

California Civil Code Section 47

If the allegations of false arrest/imprisonment, etc. against a retailer arise out of actions taken by a police department after an employee calls them, then the retailerís actions are absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47. The practical effect of the privilege means that as long as the report is made to police, regardless of whether correct or incorrect, the actions of the retailer are completely privileged and no civil liability can stem from them.

This privilege was confirmed in the Court of Appeal decision of Hunsucker v. Sunnyvale Hilton Inn, 23 Cal. App. 4th 1498, 1503-04 (1994). In Hunsucker, the absolute privilege applied when an employee, albeit mistakenly, reported criminal activity to her manager who then reported it to police. The police arrested Mr. Hunsucker and handcuffed him in the hotel room for approximately 30 minutes. The police then realized they had made a mistake as to Mr. Hunsuckerís identity and confirmed that there was no criminal activity. Plaintiff sued the hotel for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and deprivation of civil rights. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the actions taken by the police department against plaintiff ( a completely innocent individual), the court held that the communication by the hotel manager to the police was absolutely privileged and no civil liability could flow from it. The court concluded that the importance of free and open access to the police to report suspected criminal activity outweighed the occasional harm that might befall an individual.

We have successfully argued the absolute privilege under Civil Code section 47 both at the demurrer and motion for summary judgment level on behalf of several of our clients including a situation where plaintiff was arrested and ultimately spent 24 hours in jail before being charged with a felony theft offense. The police ultimately concluded that they had charged the wrong person, however, the storeís communication to the police regarding the suspected shoplifting was held to be absolutely privileged.

Cali-Glock
11-26-2012, 22:18
Because you don't agree with them, the lawakers in other States are "screwy"?

Oh, wait. I see where you are from:upeyes::upeyes:

So what does my being from California have to do with my thoughts on this issue? If anything it makes me even more conservative having to deal with the California BS for my life...


:supergrin:

TK-421
11-26-2012, 22:20
I wonder if this could be considered a, "Occupational related Death?"

:whistling:

The only shame of this is that his POS family will get $$$ from Wally World for his crime.

Only in America!

:faint:

I don't think that's the only shame. The other shame is that the people who detained could potentially face manslaughter charges. I really hope they don't, but it's a possibility. I don't care about the criminal dying, I care about the effects it will have on the people who detained him and on walmart.

The guy's family doesn't need tons of money, but I'm sure they'll probably get a million at least, just to make sure they don't go to court. And I don't think the people who did it should be in legal trouble, as the story stands. However, if the guy who had him in a choke hold purposefully held onto him for too long to try and do serious damage, that's a different story. But as the story stands, it sounds like it was totally accidental.

countrygun
11-26-2012, 22:30
So what does my being from California have to do with my thoughts on this issue? If anything it makes me even more conservative having to deal with the California BS for my life...


:supergrin:

:supergrin::supergrin:

Well ,like we have become used to from Californians when they show up here in my State, you assumed that the rest of the Country operated as YOU think it should, and you were wrong. Not only that but also wrong as it applied to your own State. I think several posters have shown both errors.

Do you have any idea what a burden it is for the rest of the Country, and especially close neighbors like me, to be bombarded by the rampant idealism, and misrepresentation of reality, (needed to shore up the idealism) that leaks from California constantly?

:supergrin::tongueout:

TK-421
11-26-2012, 22:41
Do you have any idea what a burden it is for the rest of the Country, and especially close neighbors like me, to be bombarded by the rampant idealism, and misrepresentation of reality, (needed to shore up the idealism) that leaks from California constantly?

:supergrin::tongueout:

Just so long as you get to deal with them, instead of me. Sucker. :tongueout:

countrygun
11-26-2012, 22:48
Just so long as you get to deal with them, instead of me. Sucker. :tongueout:

We're putting the Oregon Border Patrol back in to commission. We're going to be sending them East

:tongueout:

Cali-Glock
11-26-2012, 22:56
Well ,like we have become used to from Californians when they show up here in my State, you assumed that the rest of the Country operated as YOU think it should, and you were wrong. Not only that but also wrong as it applied to your own State. I think several posters have shown both errors.


1) I have indeed been shown I was incorrect, and I appreciative of the way in which it was done. It is very much an eye opener.

2) I have NO desire to impose California's wackiness on the rest of the nation!!! REALLY!

3) I still can't wrap my brain around the idea that a mall-cop, or minimum wage loss-control geek can legally detain me against my will. How can this be a Constitutional/Moral/Good thing?

:supergrin:

Do you have any idea what a burden it is for the rest of the Country, and especially close neighbors like me, to be bombarded by the rampant idealism, and misrepresentation of reality, (needed to shore up the idealism) that leaks from California constantly?

:supergrin::tongueout:

In response to your statement, I agree. I somewhat do identify with your situation: I live in a conservative County - the last time they carried for a Democrat in the national election was more than 40 years ago, and that was an aberration. CCW is shall issue, churches host CCW courses, and sponsor shooting outings, and weddings have been known to be open carry events. I have given firearms to two pastors, and go to Front Sight with a local pastor. We are a RED county. I'll put my Congressman (http://www.tommcclintock.com/) up against any in the nation for conservatism; if yours is more conservative - congratulations, it is a rare and proud feat indeed.

I am not proud of California's wackiness; and its negative effect upon the rest of the nation. I do my best (as do many other conservative Patriots) fight the best I can against such nonsense within California. Unfortunately California continues to get worse, and if the most recent election is indicative (which I hope it is not), it would appear the sadly national sentiment is leaning toward California wackiness.

- I may be in the minority (or even wrong) in not agreeing with retailers being able to detain suspected shoplifters, but I don't come to my conclusion through a liberal thought process, but rather through libertarian, freedom thoughts....

If you think I am anti-business, go see my posts on the business vs union, right-to-work (and right to fire) threads.

:supergrin::wavey:

countrygun
11-26-2012, 23:06
1) 3) I still can't wrap my brain around the idea that a mall-cop, or minimum wage loss-control geek can legally detain me against my will. How can this be a Constitutional/Moral/Good thing?



Well you asked.

Right there you show, no matter what you think yourself to be, the liberal infection, masquerading and respect for rights, has infected you.

You have no respect for the owner of the property and the business. You have a smug and unwarranted sense of superiority about their employees,

".....minimum wage loss-control geek"

it oozes out of your words.

Apparently you feel that the owner of a business should have no recourse if someone is caught stealing. Presumably because all business owners are rich. Just like Government.(That attitude has been inculcated in Californians and explains their current fiscal mess).

Yet at the same time some like to "brag about "How Conservative" they are:upeyes:

NEOH212
11-26-2012, 23:12
I don't think that's the only shame. The other shame is that the people who detained could potentially face manslaughter charges. I really hope they don't, but it's a possibility. I don't care about the criminal dying, I care about the effects it will have on the people who detained him and on walmart.

The guy's family doesn't need tons of money, but I'm sure they'll probably get a million at least, just to make sure they don't go to court. And I don't think the people who did it should be in legal trouble, as the story stands. However, if the guy who had him in a choke hold purposefully held onto him for too long to try and do serious damage, that's a different story. But as the story stands, it sounds like it was totally accidental.


Yes, unfortunately your right about that. It's a shame there isn't protection for people in cases like this when they are trying to defend their property.

The laws seriously need to be changed.

Cali-Glock
11-26-2012, 23:17
Well you asked.

Right there you show, no matter what you think yourself to be, the liberal infection, masquerading and respect for rights, has infected you.

You have no respect for the owner of the property and the business. You have a smug and unwarranted sense of superiority about their employees,

".....minimum wage loss-control geek"

it oozes out of your words.

Apparently you feel that the owner of a business should have no recourse if someone is caught stealing. Presumably because all business owners are rich. Just like Government.(That attitude has been inculcated in Californians and explains their current fiscal mess).

Yet at the same time some like to "brag about "How Conservative" they are:upeyes:

Again it is you who are making assumptions. Your assumption and accusations could not be further from the truth.

What does the relative wealth or lack there-of of a business owner or business have to do with this discussion or my rationale? Nothing,

How is it a right for to detain another person?

As to my condescending attitude toward "mall-cops", my apologies to the non-idiots in the industry, unfortunately your peers have earned their reputation and justified condescension. There is a reason why the famous Gecko45 "Mall-Cop" meme has been such a sensation for more than a decade.

countrygun
11-26-2012, 23:23
Again it is you who are making assumptions. Your assumption and accusations could not be further from the truth.

What does the relative wealth or lack there-of of a business owner or business have to do with this discussion or my rationale? Nothing,

How is it a right for to detain another person?

As to my condescending attitude toward "mall-cops", my apologies to the non-idiots in the industry, unfortunately your peers have earned their reputation and justified condescension. There is a reason why the famous Gecko45 "Mall-Cop" meme has been such a sensation for more than a decade.


You are a rolling example of assumptions yourself.
Prhaps it is just your chosen wording that seems to imply that I am a mall cop and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will go with that.


Of course it is right to detain a thief...what part of that gets past you???? The fact that it seems to be holding up as law in several States INCLUDING YOUR OWN, doesn't seem to cause you a moment's reflection on whether you might just be wrong....No, you just bash along convinced of your righteousness despite the the facts and the evidence.

You couldn't live up to my expectations any better if you were trying.

TK-421
11-26-2012, 23:24
We're putting the Oregon Border Patrol back in to commission. We're going to be sending them East

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue%20out.gif

Forget putting a huge fence around Wyoming and sticking the criminals in it, put up a huge fence around California and stick all the criminals in it. "We've had to deal with your ****, now you get to deal with our's." :rofl:

Yes, unfortunately your right about that. It's a shame there isn't protection for people in cases like this when they are trying to defend their property.

The laws seriously need to be changed.

Forget changing the laws, just kill the greedy *******s who try to profit big time off this kind of thing. They can't sue when the whole family is dead. :supergrin:

FatPants
11-26-2012, 23:29
I worked at a Wal-Mart in 1983-1984. We had offically a policy of not confronting shoplifters. That being said, the store manager would give anyone who caught a shoplifter a day off with pay.

Definitely not the case these days. WM's Assets Protection Associates apprehend shoplifters daily.

Cali-Glock
11-26-2012, 23:29
An honest question:

So when my local non-uniformed mall-ninja mistakenly thinks I have stolen from his employer and attempts to make a citizens arrest, do I have any rights to resist? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between the well meaning and lawful mall-ninja and some lunatic who may or may not be employed at the store.

Cali-Glock
11-26-2012, 23:34
You are a rolling example of assumptions yourself.
Prhaps it is just your chosen wording that seems to imply that I am a mall cop and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will go with that.


Of course it is right to detain a thief...what part of that gets past you???? The fact that it seems to be holding up as law in several States INCLUDING YOUR OWN, doesn't seem to cause you a moment's reflection on whether you might just be wrong....No, you just bash along convinced of your righteousness despite the the facts and the evidence.

You couldn't live up to my expectations any better if you were trying.


I conceded the law many posts ago... What I have argued is that the law is stupid, and more to the point the behavior is stupid.

So based on your logic if it is law it is good. So that must mean by your logic that laws which ban certain weapons automatically make such laws a good thing for society?

Nor have any of my post in any way insinuated that you were or are involved in that profession. Until your most recent post, it never even occurred to me you might be involved in retail security.

Again your assumptions. :rofl:

You are one silly chap!

TK-421
11-26-2012, 23:37
Definitely not the case these days. WM's Assets Protection Associates apprehend shoplifters daily.

If I had to guess, they have the rule on the books of don't chase them, just get a description to give to the cops, for cases where something major happens, like happened here. However, if nothing major happens, then people turn a blind eye to it.

The whole point of the rule is so Walmart can say "We had nothing to do with that, we've trained them so that they don't go after the criminals. Just let them get away so that nobody gets hurt. It's not our fault they didn't follow the rules, and we can't be held liable for their actions." Which won't hold up very well in court I'm guess, at least not the "court of public opinion", but someone thinks it's a good idea, so they have the rule on the books.

Calico Jack
11-26-2012, 23:44
An honest question:

So when my local non-uniformed mall-ninja mistakenly thinks I have stolen from his employer and attempts to make a citizens arrest, do I have any rights to resist? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between the well meaning and lawful mall-ninja and some lunatic who may or may not be employed at the store.

Don't shoplift and I'm willing to bet that you will never be stopped by an LP.

countrygun
11-26-2012, 23:45
I conceded the law many posts ago... What I have argued is that the law is stupid, and more to the point the behavior is stupid.

So based on your logic if it is law it is good. So that must mean by your logic that laws which ban certain weapons automatically make such laws a good thing for society?

Nor have any of my post in any way insinuated that you were or are involved in that profession. Until your most recent post, it never even occurred to me you might be involved in retail security.

Again your assumptions. :rofl:

You are one silly chap!


Effective condescension is not your forte.

I have nothing to do with retail security, it just sounded as though you were inferring so.

You don't think a business owner should be able to keep people from stealing merchandise and you accuse me of being "silly"?

You attempt to divert the argument to gun control. I would say that is "silly".

Let's discuss, why, in your opinion, a person should be able to go into a business and steal without fear of being detained?

Cali-Glock
11-27-2012, 00:04
Don't shoplift and I'm willing to bet that you will never be stopped by an LP.

I would hope so but links provided by others demonstrate that it happens and that businesses are protected from civil lawsuits.

Cali-Glock
11-27-2012, 00:13
Effective condescension is not your forte.

I have nothing to do with retail security, it just sounded as though you were inferring so.

You don't think a business owner should be able to keep people from stealing merchandise and you accuse me of being "silly"?

You attempt to divert the argument to gun control. I would say that is "silly".

Let's discuss, why, in your opinion, a person should be able to go into a business and steal without fear of being detained?

Fear and deterent is a good thing. Untrained minimum wage geeks trying to be cops is not a good idea at all.

The result of having minimum wage loss prevention geeks is stupid employees choking some guy to death over $100 in merchandise.

If liberalism has affected my opinion in this matter it is in having defended employers as a Risk Manager for more than 20 years, albeit not retail. Making money is about taking risks, but they should be calculated and managed risks.

Certain behaviors will give you some very bad results, as demonstrated by the incident which prompted this thread

Cali-Glock
11-27-2012, 00:20
You attempt to divert the argument to gun control. I would say that is "silly".



A: I did not divert the argument, I pointed out the flaw/fallacy of your logic

B: yes silly! You have repeatedly made and stated wrong assumptions about me while accusing me of supposedly making assumptions which in fact I never made. That is pretty silly my friend!

Calico Jack
11-27-2012, 00:41
I would hope so but links provided by others demonstrate that it happens and that businesses are protected from civil lawsuits.

Care to provide those links that prove businesses are protected from civil lawsuits when detaining a customer that has not shoplifted?

Foxtrotx1
11-27-2012, 01:17
I am uncertain that it true even in California and certainly not in many jurisdictions.






Let's add Florida to the list of places that allow a shopkeeper or his agent to detain a shoplifter with very limited liability...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0812/Sections/0812.015.html

"(3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, ...who has probable cause to believe ...a retail theft, ...., has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time.... "

"(c) The taking into custody and detention by a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchantís employee, .., if done in compliance with all the requirements of this subsection, shall not render such law enforcement officer, merchant, merchantís employee,.., criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention."

Manslaughter is not "for false arrest, false imprisonment or unlawful detention." so you can still sue for that.

G26S239
11-27-2012, 01:18
:supergrin::supergrin:

Well ,like we have become used to from Californians when they show up here in my State, you assumed that the rest of the Country operated as YOU think it should, and you were wrong. Not only that but also wrong as it applied to your own State. I think several posters have shown both errors.

Do you have any idea what a burden it is for the rest of the Country, and especially close neighbors like me, to be bombarded by the rampant idealism, and misrepresentation of reality, (needed to shore up the idealism) that leaks from California constantly?

:supergrin::tongueout:
Your state has two Democrat Senators in DC, 4 out of 5 of your House members are Democrats, the last 5 Governors have all been Democrats, the last 5 Mayors of Portland could have been elected in San Francisco just as easily. President Obama won your state in 2008 and 2012, Kerry won it Oregon in 2004, Al Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton won Oregon in 1992 and 1996.

You have a beam in your own eye.

Bruce M
11-27-2012, 06:10
1...
3) I still can't wrap my brain around the idea that a mall-cop, or minimum wage loss-control geek can legally detain me against my will. How can this be a Constitutional/Moral/Good thing?



...
:supergrin::wavey:

When store security apprehends shoplifters it is good for anyone who shops at that store by virtue of helping to keep costs down. The Constitution tends to be more about setting limits on government than on citizens or private enterprises.






Fear and deterent is a good thing. Untrained minimum wage geeks trying to be cops is not a good idea at all.

The result of having minimum wage loss prevention geeks is stupid employees choking some guy to death over $100 in merchandise.

...

My guess is that (sadly) thousands of times a day a store loss prevention person succesfully apprehends a shoplifter without incident (good thing.) This event is unfortunate but lets not think it is common for shoplifters to die in store custody any more than it is common for people who have resisted police arrest to die accidentally. But sometimes when people resist bad things happen. The moral has alot more to do not resisting than it does with apprehending bad guys as does the solution to the problem.

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 06:39
There is only so much shrink that a store can pass through to the consumer. Shrink really affects the shareholder's bottom line more than anything.

Optimizing shrink is as much a part of Wal Mart's success as their distribution efficiencies.

stolenphot0
11-27-2012, 13:04
Found a more indepth story on Huffpost with a quote from the wife

"He was a good person, but he just had a problem with drugs," Fatimah Calloway, his wife said to Georgia Daily News. "That's just what it was. He wouldn't hurt anybody."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/vidal-calloway-walmart-shoplifter-death_n_2198068.html

countrygun
11-27-2012, 13:17
Your state has two Democrat Senators in DC, 4 out of 5 of your House members are Democrats, the last 5 Governors have all been Democrats, the last 5 Mayors of Portland could have been elected in San Francisco just as easily. President Obama won your state in 2008 and 2012, Kerry won it Oregon in 2004, Al Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton won Oregon in 1992 and 1996.

You have a beam in your own eye.


I am far removed from "The valley" that controls Oregon's politics. i will go you one further. Before I left the Portland are a they elected a Mayor born and raised in Chicago who had been nothing but a professional Chicago politician all her life.

I am aware of our effed politics. You ought to be aware that it comes from the squirrel cage of the overpopulated Willamette Valley for the most part, which generall ends about Eugene, which is just San Francisco with colder rain.

Take a look at the red and blue distribution in the State on a county by County basis.

Oh, by the way, the Wilamette Valley is where most of the Californicators settled in huge numbers

Mayhem like Me
11-27-2012, 13:53
GA cop here, his actions were not a felony UNLESS he started to use threat or force, like hitting or threatening employees ..
If he was just resisting the arrest then no felony is involved.


I would say that the intent and training of the employees that apprehended him need to be taken into consideration when looking at possible charges..No he did not deserve to die , nor did the employees deserve the **** sammich they bit into when trying to apprehend the suspect that supposedly lifted the cheap ass electronics...Bad decisions hurt.

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 14:48
Found a more indepth story on Huffpost with a quote from the wife



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/vidal-calloway-walmart-shoplifter-death_n_2198068.html

If drugs were legal and priced like booze I wonder if he would have been stealing that night.

countrygun
11-27-2012, 14:58
If drugs were legal and priced like booze I wonder if he would have been stealing that night.

Meth is cheap around here and I know of a nice old man that was killed by a meth head who couldn't keep a job and had to steal to feed his habit.

G26S239
11-27-2012, 16:05
I am far removed from "The valley" that controls Oregon's politics. i will go you one further. Before I left the Portland are a they elected a Mayor born and raised in Chicago who had been nothing but a professional Chicago politician all her life.

I am aware of our effed politics. You ought to be aware that it comes from the squirrel cage of the overpopulated Willamette Valley for the most part, which generall ends about Eugene, which is just San Francisco with colder rain.

Take a look at the red and blue distribution in the State on a county by County basis.

Oh, by the way, the Wilamette Valley is where most of the Californicators settled in huge numbers
I could play that same ridiculous geographic blame game.
Barbara Boxer was born in NY
Mark Leno was born in Wisconsin
Willie Brown was born in Texas
Tom Hayden was born in Detroit
Tom Amiano was born in NJ
Jane Fonda was born in NY
Rob Reiner was born in NY
Rather than do that I accept that there are a lot of screwballs in this state both born here and moved here.

As far as the Democrat Governors that have dominated your state since the 1987 election
1. Neil Goldschmidt was born in Oregon
2. Barbara Roberts was born in Oregon
3. John Kitzhaber was born in Oregon
4. Ted Kulongoski was born in Missouri
The fact that these Democrat Governors were born in Oregon suggests to me that a lot of other Democrats were born in Oregon as well. But it is all about California isn't it?

Of the 4 Democrat House members currently representing Oregon
1. Bonamici is from Mich.
2. Blumenauer is from Or.
3. Defazio is from Mass.
4. Schrader is from Conn.

The two US Senators
1. Wyden is from Kansas
2. Merkley is from Oregon
But that all goes back to CA too, doesn't it?

Regardless of their place of birth all these people were voted in by Oregon voters Countrygun. Oregon voters including 5 of my 1st cousins that were born in Oregon and grew up there. My 1st cousins are all in there 50s and most, if not all, of their children and grandchildren are or will be Dims as well. If you are going to point at Cali-Glock as being personally responsible for everything crappy about CA than it follows that you are personally responsible for Clinton and Obama both being two term presidents.

Most of your posts that I have seen here and at Sigforum are considerably better than the ones in this thread.

countrygun
11-27-2012, 16:25
I could play that same ridiculous geographic blame game.
Barbara Boxer was born in NY
Mark Leno was born in Wisconsin
Willie Brown was born in Texas
Tom Hayden was born in Detroit
Tom Amiano was born in NJ
Jane Fonda was born in NY
Rob Reiner was born in NY
Rather than do that I accept that there are a lot of screwballs in this state both born here and moved here.

As far as the Democrat Governors that have dominated your state since the 1987 election
1. Neil Goldschmidt was born in Oregon
2. Barbara Roberts was born in Oregon
3. John Kitzhaber was born in Oregon
4. Ted Kulongoski was born in Missouri
The fact that these Democrat Governors were born in Oregon suggests to me that a lot of other Democrats were born in Oregon as well. But it is all about California isn't it?

Of the 4 Democrat House members currently representing Oregon
1. Bonamici is from Mich.
2. Blumenauer is from Or.
3. Defazio is from Mass.
4. Schrader is from Conn.

The two US Senators
1. Wyden is from Kansas
2. Merkley is from Oregon
But that all goes back to CA too, doesn't it?

Regardless of their place of birth all these people were voted in by Oregon voters Countrygun. Oregon voters including 5 of my 1st cousins that were born in Oregon and grew up there. My 1st cousins are all in there 50s and most, if not all, of their children and grandchildren are or will be Dims as well. If you are going to point at Cali-Glock as being personally responsible for everything crappy about CA than it follows that you are personally responsible for Clinton and Obama both being two term presidents.

Most of your posts that I have seen here and at Sigforum are considerably better than the ones in this thread.


Thanks for the compliment but allow me to point out, since you want to exchange pedigrees, I have four genterations of the "european" side of my family buried in the local cemetary and another 2 buried elsewhere and as I indicated, that id the european side, not he ones who were here to meet them.

I have seen how this State has changed as a result of the California influx,(it is not a recent event BTW) and again, take me up on my offer and do your research about the voting County by County, and then since you are even more interested in accuracy, track where the bulk of the Californians have moved to, inside Oregon. you will find a correlation..

G26S239
11-27-2012, 17:02
Thanks for the compliment but allow me to point out, since you want to exchange pedigrees, I have four genterations of the "european" side of my family buried in the local cemetary and another 2 buried elsewhere and as I indicated, that id the european side, not he ones who were here to meet them.

I have seen how this State has changed as a result of the California influx,(it is not a recent event BTW) and again, take me up on my offer and do your research about the voting County by County, and then since you are even more interested in accuracy, track where the bulk of the Californians have moved to, inside Oregon. you will find a correlation..
I have looked at the county by county breakdown for Oregon. Here it is for CA. http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/california/
And here it is for Oregon http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/oregon/ 59.3% of California voters voted for BO, 54.5% of Oregon voters did, that is a whopping 4.8% difference. If you wish to assign collective guilt for BO's second term you are just as culpable as I am.