More Mayhem & Death At Wal-Mart

reply to post by Jb0311NY

I stand amazed. You have some asshole thief who gets caught, likely can't stand up to the stress when he gets caught, and suddenly it's someone else's fault.

If there's one thing that's really gone to hell in this country, is that no one is to be responsible for their own actions - unless it's against you personally.

You walk in with a gun to rob a bank, and you get shot, and I don't care if someone shoots you in the back of the head, it's your fault, as you are the one whose actions precipitated EVERYTHING.

You want to shoplift? Then make sure you have a good ticker so that if and when you're caught, you won't have the audacity and discourtesy to vapor-lock when you get caught and taken down.

And if you are in bad health, don't struggle and you just might make it.

No, this is not something that Wal-Mart initiated. This is an event that a thief initiated. He stole, and was stupid, as he got caught. And then he vapor-locked.

One thing about it.

That SOB won't steal anymore for Christmas, will he?

Morality and ethics aside, it was against store policy, as a previous poster explained, for these wallmart drones to tackle the guy and hold him down, period. They killed him. Accidentally I'm sure but there it is. I've worked in retail and I would never in a million years try to restrain a shoplifter. It was not part of my job description and we too were advised to alert security or management when we witnessed theft.

They will probably be fired for it. Prosecuted? Who knows. They will have to live with the fact that they caused someone's death over merchandise, and if they have a moral conscience, which they must, having been so inspired to action over mere theft, then that may be serious enough consequences for them to review their priorities.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Pilot]

Originally posted by Heike
Just for a slightly different (and perhaps more knowledgeable) perspective, my husband (who works in the Tire & Lube Express at a Walmart) tells me that what those employees did is strictly AGAINST Walmart policy. Employees are not supposed to attempt to confront or detain shoplifters,

Found a link to what is suppose to be Walmart's Employee Handbook. [According to this Google Search)

Walmart Employee Handbook

VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE PREVENTION POLICY

Zero tolerance

This company has a policy of zero tolerance for violence. If you engage in any violence in the workplace, or threaten violence in the workplace, your employment will be terminated immediately for cause. No talk of violence or joking about violence will be tolerated.
“
Violence" includes physically harming another, shoving, pushing, harassing, intimidating, coercing, brandishing weapons, and threatening or talking of engaging in those activities. It is the intent of this policy to ensure that everyone associated with this business, including employees and customers, never feels threatened by any employee’s actions or conduct.

So, these employees where disregarding Walmart's rules for violence in the work place.

What does the law say about them making a "citizens arrest".

What is a Citizens Arrest?

A citizen's arrest is an arrest performed by a civilian who lacks official government authority to make an arrest (as opposed to an officer of the law). An arrest, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, is "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).

Although generally the person making a citizens arrest must be a citizen, in certain states, a citizens arrest can be carried out by a civilian who is not a citizen (for example, an alien or illegal immigrant). A citizens arrest does not necessarily mean an arrest made by a single individual who happens to witness a crime. For example, a department store may also carry out a citizens arrest in the course of apprehending a shoplifter.

So, even though Walmart doesn't condone violence, any of it's employees still have a right to perform a citizens arrest and detain a person for certain crimes.

Legal Requirements for Making a Citizens Arrest
******SKIP******
Today, citizens arrests are still legal in every state, although state laws pertaining to citizens arrests are not uniform. In general, all states permit citizens arrests if a criminal felony (defined by the government as a serious crime, usually punishable by at least one year in prison) is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or if a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. Variations of state law arise in cases of misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party.

For example, California Penal Code mandates:
A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. (C.P.C. 837).

In contrast, New York State Consolidated Laws hold that:
Any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence. (N.Y.C.L. 140.30).

I would think, in the case of a department store, due to the first quote, that they would be able to perform a citizen's arrest due to the fact that, very rarely is a shoplifter going to be stealing something worth enough to classify the crime as a "felony"!

What are the stores expected to do, just watch people shoplift their merchandise and not detain them, perform a citizen's arrest, just because what they were stealing wouldn't be a "felony" crime?

Stores would be being robbed blind if this was allowed!

And here's where, I believe, these Walmart workers made their mistake!

Dangers of Making an Erroneous Citizens Arrest
******SKIP******
Additionally, it is in violation of a suspects rights for a citizen making an arrest to use unnecessary force, to intentionally harm the suspect, to hold the suspect in unsafe conditions, or to delay in turning the suspect over to authorities. A citizen making an arrest is acting in the place of an officer of the law, and as such, is required to uphold the same rights and civil liberties as an officer of the law must uphold.

A citizen who violates a suspects rights, or who violates the applicable state law in detaining the suspect, (for example, arresting a suspect for a misdemeanor when the state statute requires a felony for a citizens arrest), risks being sued or even charged with a crime.

I believe in this case, the employees used bad judgment in the way they detained the suspect!

They used too much force (violation of a suspects rights for a citizen making an arrest to use unnecessary force) and held the suspect in a way that caused his death (violation of a suspects rights to intentionally harm the suspect, to hold the suspect in unsafe conditions)!

Though they may not have intentionally caused the suspects death, they did cause his death by using excess force and holding the suspect in unsafe conditions.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Keyhole]

Their mistake number one was that they held him on the ground facing down with someone on his back.

There have been many lawsuits in the past of mental hospitals doing that and the person on the back compresses the lungs so air can not be taken into the lungs. The person then struggles to breath and is inadvertently thought to be "fighting" and dies due to not being able to breath.

Because of that they are now restrained in a standing position and if do fall to the ground are rolled on their back to keep this from happening.

Second mistake was taking him down in the first place.
I was toying with opening up a family fun center and contacted local police about what I could legally do if someone came on the premise trying to sell drugs to kids. I was told I could not hold them for police or restrain them in any way, just let them go and call the police with any info. I had about the person as anything else was technically illegal.

Originally posted by ATS4dummies
Wait a second:

1) 53 year old Guy tries to Steal
2) Gets caught stealing
3) uses all of his energy to evade and escape from being caught
4) dies as a result of his:
a) unethical behavior
b) unwillingness to take resposibility for his actions he KNOWS are wrong

I don't see any problem here at all.
In fact, I'd say the world is now a better place as a result.

Flame away, but some people just have no concept of ethical behavior.

then with that logic, all business owners who catch a shoplifter should be able to kill that person....that would slow down shoplifting for sure. if fact any person who is unethical should also be killed. and like you say...no problem at all...except for the millions of deaths a year in this country, but according to you, this would make for a better world.

South Carolina (where this took place) has a statute that allows for a person to be "delayed" if there a question of ownership.

SECTION 16-13-140. Defense to action for delay to investigate ownership of merchandise.
In any action brought by reason of having been delayed by a merchant or merchant's employee or agent on or near the premises of a mercantile establishment for the purpose of investigation concerning the ownership of any merchandise, it shall be a defense to such action if: (1) The person was delayed in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to permit such investigation, and (2) reasonable cause existed to believe that the person delayed had committed the crime of shoplifting.

www.scstatehouse.gov...

If the family pursues a civil suit, it will be up to the court to determine "reasonable."

Anyone stop to think this man could have been Senile and thought he had payed for his items?

Here's an article about this incident on a Southth Carolina Criminal Defense Blog.

Another Walmart death

Now, let's assume for purposes of this conversation that the Walmart employees in some way caused this man's death. No one has been charged as far as I know and anything is possible; but for arguments sake here, I will assume that he did not drop dead of natural causes while loss prevention was chasing him. S.C. law permits a citizen's arrest:.

Upon (a) view of a felony committed, (b) certain information that a felony has been committed or (c) view of a larceny committed, any person may arrest the felon or thief and take him to a judge or magistrate, to be dealt with according to law. (S.C. Code 17-13-10)

And S.C. law permits the use of deadly force during a citizen's arrest as well:

A citizen may arrest a person in the nighttime by efficient means as the darkness and the probability of escape render necessary, even if the life of the person should be taken, when the person:

(a) has committed a felony;

(b) has entered a dwelling house without express or implied permission;

(c) has broken or is breaking into an outhouse with a view to plunder;

(d) has in his possession stolen property; or

(e) being under circumstances which raise just suspicion of his design to steal or to commit some felony, flees when he is hailed. (S.C. Code 17-13-20)

But could this justify causing the death of a person while stopping them from shoplifting? In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a police officer cannot use deadly force against an apparently unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect. S.C. however, has held that Garner does not apply to private citizens:

Obviously this is going to have to be decided upon by a judge, seems to me that there is just too much confusion into exactly what a person can and can't do in making a citizen's arrest and the suspects detainment afterwards.

Citizen's being able to use deadly force (while police can't) on an unarmed shoplifter, who's lying on his stomach on the ground is just nuts.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Keyhole]

Rent-a-cops, or Store employees should never EVER touch anyone, especially once they have left the confines of the store. EVER.
I worked retail more than once, and we were always told the above.

Why? because someone might get hurt. The employee, OR the thief.
Next time, this Wal-Mart posse may face the business end of a gun.

They have security cameras, they have eyes, they have pencils. And more than likely, within a group of 5 Wal-mart employees, odds are at least one is literate enough to write down a license plate number. The store also has insurance.

What were they protecting? 200 dollars worth of Wal-Mart's stuff?
(the wholesale price.)
It wasn't even their merchandise. Why should they care so much?
Trying to be heros?

This man was murdered by Wal-Mart employees, and the "bystander".
Humiliating, to be killed by low-life's like that. Charges better be filed.
Manslaughter at the very least.
It can't end with no charges filed, it just can't.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Anyone stop to think this man could have been Senile and thought he had payed for his items?

That's a good point. I'm not senile. But I've almost walked out of a store with something in my hand without paying for it. It can easily happen.

Senile? You don't just walk out of a store with that much merchandise and "forget."

This guy took an option, lost, died, and his blood be on his own head.

I was in a mall one night and saw three guys I recognized, and they were trying to detain this guy for "shoplifting." I swear he must have been 6'3, and weighed 300-plus pounds.

The more they struggled, the more crap fell out from under this big guy's shirt and pants. Try as they could, he was a bit too much to handle to hold for the Police.

I asked if they needed a hand, and gasping, replied "absolutely." So I grabbed his pants legs, braced myself, and snatched as hard as I could. His forehead bounced off the tile floor, and he was out cold.

I hate damned thief, just as I hate a liar. In Muslim countries, they don't have much theft. I like their methods. Barbaric and immediate. That's how you stop this stuff.

And as far as finding myself looking down the barrel of a gun?

I won't be the only one.

Just a crook being run over by Karma. A thief is a Thief is a Thief.
As others have already stated, he stated the whole thing, and he paid the price. If he fought with them, it becomes strong arm robbery (Felony) and I could care less if it cost him his life. I can't stomach thieves.

Well well, a piece of pond scum, another stinking thief, is now in hell. It must be getting pretty crowded down there. Too bad the dude decided to become a good for nothing thief AND decided to resist when caught. One more down, and God knows how many more to go! Damn self-righteous thieves, thinking they are entitled to whatever they please. Let this be a lesson for the next thieving creep. When will the evil ones ever learn.

there are a bunch of walmart employees living behind me. when they are not eating human remains they are practicing voodoo.

reply to post by Divinorumus



Nice Judge and Jury action you have going there.
I'm assuming you knew the guy, base on the clarity of your description of his personality traits.

The last I heard, the Wal-Mart employees enjoy profit sharing. Thieves not only hurt the company, but take money from the employees.

I don't blame store security at all. They were doing their job.

Do you do yours?

I think they were doing MORE than their job. Something beyond their training.
They killed a guy, for a couple of hundred dollars worth of merchandise.
And i f you were asking me, yes I do my job. and to date, no one has died due to me working beyond the scope of my training.

Originally posted by dooper
The last I heard, the Wal-Mart employees enjoy profit sharing. Thieves not only hurt the company, but take money from the employees.

I don't blame store security at all. They were doing their job.

Do you do yours?

Yeah I do, but I wouldn't partake in someone's death for a few cents - which is what they'd have been protecting in any profit sharing scheme.

In the state of Calif a security guard /store security my not use force to apprehend a suspect.
Unless the suspect uses force against the security officer or another person first.

Wal-Mart has cameras everywhere in there stores and parking lots there is no need for them to use force to stop someone. they have it all on video tape.
The best part is if they screw up and use force illegally they are going to get hung with there own video tapes.


As a security guard i would stand in front of the suspect and block his way out and that was all could do until he used force of any kind.
only then could i use force.

I always had backup that would get behind the suspect just in case.

There was a case in the town i live in that as a older man left a store the alarm went off and a young security guard caught up with him because the man did not stop and grabbed him by the arm.

The old guy was a ex marine/retired security guard and layed the young security guard out cold.

When the cops got there they arrested the guard.

The old ex marine had payed for every thing and one of the idem was batteries for his hearing aids.

He had never heard the store alarm.

reply to post by spacedoubt


He shouldn't have resisted. Life's full of personal choices, each with their own consequences. If he wasn't guilty, he could have cleared this up within a minute or two. Either he was guilty of theft, or just plane stupid. Yeah, death wasn't necessary, but hey, he made his choice to resist and that's that. Had those been cops chasing him down the outcome would have been the same.

I have zero tolerance for thieves. There is no excuse, none what so ever, nor any justification, to steal. Where all this self-righteous entitlement mentality is coming from in the world today is a mystery to me. If the guy had adopted a different mentality instead of thinking theft was a solution, maybe he would have pursued that instead. When you believe theft is not an option, it isn't and it doesn't become an option!

BTW, does anyone know where South Carlina is, I'm trying to figure out where this happened.