More Mayhem & Death At Wal-Mart

No. They didn't kill the guy for a couple hundred dollars worth of merchandise. They didn't shoot the SOB, beat him to death, or cut off his head.

They stopped him, he struggled, and depending on the autopsy, I'd bet a good spanking that he died of heart failure. Too much excitement, too many artery clogging Big Mac's, and he just vapor-locked.

Normal, healthy men, even when struggling, don't vapor-lock.

He made a bad decision to steal, he stole poorly so that he got caught, and then when caught, he had to struggle, leading to his death.

I find that all these actions were a direct result of him stealing.

They didn't kill this man.

He died.

The dollar amount is irrevelant.

I run from the law after committing a crime, hit and kill somebody, then guess what? I didn't mean for it to happen when I did the initial crime, but there are always circumstances you can't forsee when you intentionally do wrong. But it's still your own fault.

Originally posted by dooper
The dollar amount is irrevelant.

Well, to be fair, you were the one that brought up 'profit sharing' earlier. How is profit sharing not connected to value of goods lost?

I once worked as head cashier for a large, four-star restaurant. One day the owner of the company came back to my station and asked me what I would do if someone held me up with a gun. I laughed and said, " I'd give him the money with no argument. No offense, but I'm not dying for somebody else's cash." He laughed too. I worked there for a long time.

Maybe the guys (I'm assuming a woman wasn't involved) who tackled Donovan were looking to get promoted to management or something. I can't imagine that Wal-Mart would really want people to kill someone else or endanger themselves over petty theft (I don't consider $393 a major heist) but maybe I'm overestimating them. Maybe they want that kind of slave mentality.

It's clear the "commandos" asphyxiated the man by holding his head and neck down and sitting or standing on his back so that he couldn't breathe. That's got to be manslaughter at the very least. The victim was UNARMED and did not require lethal force. If Wal-Mart wants their employees to kill or be killed over merchandise then the least they can do is give them some proper training. I bet the Marines could detain the guy without killing him.

Ok, I don't seem to understand why everyone seems so supportive of either of the party's actions.

If the thieves are allowed to continue stealing, then anarchy ensues. How does the company stop theft if they cannot catch the criminal?

I just don't understand the thinking here.

TheBorg

reply to post by TheBorg


The point has been made that catching the thief was something that the untrained Walmarters should not have attempted. The crime was not one of violence but merely theft of material with a retail value of about $350 --- which would wholesale for about $150. The police should have been notified and provided with the information needed to capture the thief and recover the goods. If the thief had a weapon, many could have been injured or died.
In order to meet the problem in a measured way, with minimal exposure of the untrained and unprepared to violence, a better method would be to arm the Wall Force with cell phones and video cameras and let them capture the banditos images and the images of the getaway vehicle after calling the local gendarmes.
$350 is not even one visit to the emergency room for stitches.

What sort of message should be sent to the thieves in the world:

1) Go for it, you may get way with your theft, or maybe you'll be gently arrested IF the cops ever show up and catch you (which seldom happens).

or

2) Go for it, you may get way with your theft, or maybe you'll end up dead, forever (which doesn't happen enough)!

Obviously #1 is not a strong enough deterrent. I vote for #2. Maybe if the consequences and deterrents were stronger, a thief will choose a different career path in life.

Originally posted by dooper

Normal, healthy men, even when struggling, don't vapor-lock.

A number of healthy people die of chest compression caused by police or security guards every year. The act of sitting on someones back or chest can easily be lethal force. You don't breath, you die.

Usually in the cases I've read it is a couple of security guards or officers sit on the person until they realize they are dead.

A couple of years ago we had one here where security guards had somebody face down and got on his back. He died a couple of minutes later trying to tell them he could not breath. He was a very young athletic man in such good condition it took 5 men to get him down. He had no health problems. We learned all about it from the law suits and articles after.

Lay on the ground on your stomach and have someone put their full weight on your back for a few seconds, you will get the drift. Have two grown men put their weight on you, but make sure you have a paramedic standing by.

reply to post by Jb0311NY

Originally posted by Jb0311NY
Nice evade on my question btw concerning your opinion. Guess you just wanted to "argue" before kickoff. Glad I could help!!!
Have a great day!

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Jb0311NY]

Say what? You think I was evading your question?

Try stating your question clearly again. And if you want to hold an adult conversation, stop with the sniping.

reply to post by TheBorg


Neither do I. The case I mentioned above the court ruled against the mans family and they got no settlement. He was in the process of beating up patrons when the security took him down.

This kind of reminds of when people side with terrorists. It just does not make sense. I often wonder how many are posting from prison cells (kidding, sort of)

this is brainwashing and mind control in its purest,clearly these folks have been so warped by consumerist ideology and desire they have lost thier ability to act rationaly,they have de evolved b ack to the hunter gather grabbing for berries and roots at all costs.

theres something not right with some supermarkets, flourescent lights everywhere,people walking around in trances...
....i paid a visit to a different one a week back,and when i entered the toilet,surprise suprise an ultra violet light was being used as a light source!.
ultra violet lights are dangerous,they have many negative effects upon people from blindness,cancer to depression.
why are flourescent(which emit uv and radiowaves in addition to optical light)
being installed everywhere when thier negative health effets have been noted,
they even use them in premature birth wards where babies eyes are damaged by the UV spilling out resulting in blindess in premature babies!?.

the message folks is stay the hell away from supermarkets!,i assure you they intently source food which is full of chemicals and preserviatives you dont want in your body.
just about every food you buy there contains added sodium,phosphates and acidity regulators.
acidity regulators increase alkilinity,alkilinty is the key for morgellons nanobots survivial,they cannot exist in acidic environments.
coincidence that most foods now contain acidity regulators....i think not!

additionaly when sodium which accumilates in the brain is exposed to electromagnetic frequencies,it causes it to degenerate the brains structure......no coincidence that the masses of flourescent lights seen in supermarkets emit radio freq waves!!!,a covert form of dumbing down the populace!,they buy the sodium laced food there and they get dumbed down there!

get off those acids and sodium babies!

note,calcifications can be caused in the brain by targeting free calcium in the brain with microwaves which causes the calcium in the brain to calcify,there dumbing us down big time,time to get our of the cities me thinks!,or expose it,do some readings of the amount of electromagnetism were being exposed to in certain environments and analysing deceased peoples brains for evidence of the above processes.

lets do some radiowave detection of the masses of flourescent lights in public places such as supermarkets!
down with flourescent lights that are dumbing humanity down!

on another note,what do baby foods contain?,does anyone have any handy?,look out for E-colours,acidity regulators and complicated looking chemicals,id really like to know!

[edit on 7-12-2008 by welivefortheson]

reply to post by Darthorious

Originally posted by Darthorious
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.

I would not take what the police told you as a strict interpretation of the law. The police will never advise you to use physical force; they would be in one hell of a legal mess if you were injured as a result of taking that advice.

To those who say that these employees killed the thief for merchandise:

What if he had snatched an old lady's purse with her monthly SS cash in it? Should they just let him walk away with her month's money?

here you go folks,its called calcium ion efflux
www.icswebsite.com...

and is caused by (amoungst other freq) radiowaves which are emmited en masse by flourescent lights!!

so ask yourself,why are such lights being used as sources of illumunation everywhere when theres superior forms of illumunation such as LED's which use much less energy,are cheaper and are harmless!?!!??!
strange huh

oh and heres a list detailing food acidity regulators,
www.chm.bris.ac.uk...
stay away from them i impore you!,eat natural local food!

[edit on 7-12-2008 by welivefortheson]

[edit on 7-12-2008 by welivefortheson]

I say..punishment doesn't fit the crime.
The manner in which they detained him resulted in his death.

Involuntary Manslaughter charges for the guards.
No civil suit from the family of the deceased.

They had other options to handle this situation. (Tailing him, and writing down his license plate + footage of him doing the deed.)
They chose the wrong one, and extinguished a human life.
Like someone else here said, it doesn't qualify for use of deady force.

Seems pretty cut and dry.

Let me tell you the other side of this policy.

I live next to a convenience store where people routinely (as in several times a week) steal a case of beer. They park behind the store, someone runs in and grabs the beer and they take off with it. It has been the "policy" of the store to not attempt to stop the shoplifters, nor do they even call the police.

Guess what happened? Anyone? Anyone?

Yeah, well, pretty soon the store was a magnet for crime. The problem is that it spilled over into the neighborhood, and these petty thieves were snatching purses and breaking into homes. The problem simply escalated and spread.

It wasn't until the neighborhood started writing down license plates and blocking the getaway route with a fence did the problem cease.

I would be willing to bet that if Wal-Mart issued a policy to never attempt to stop a shoplifter, the crime rate around every store would skyrocket within a year.

The issue isn't whether he stole enough for it to be wrong; it isn't an issue of whether Wal-Mart deserves to be cheated. The issue is whether we, as a society, should tolerate crime.

I don't think we should.

He was a thief... a thief, not some innocent guy walking home from work, a thief.
As to the comment about the NWO, you also said that it isn't the jobs of the staff to stop the thief, do we have to employ ppl to stop thieves? does a job description mean everything? does it mean we ignore what is going on around us? or do we think and act?

Originally posted by Divinorumus
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.

I hope I never meet you in a dark alley.
You throw gods mane around with a justified kill, I swear the 10 commandments said NO to killing.

You scare me, cause there is alot like you out there.

I respect you, just wouldnt ever want someone to die for a crime. Real FORGIVNESS is what your god preaches. Maybe learn from it

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
He was a thief... a thief, not some innocent guy walking home from work, a thief.
As to the comment about the NWO, you also said that it isn't the jobs of the staff to stop the thief, do we have to employ ppl to stop thieves? does a job description mean everything? does it mean we ignore what is going on around us? or do we think and act?

While the Govt posions you with sodium flouride and GMO food's, are you acting on them?
All this agresion should be taken out on our parasitic hosts

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Jb0311NY

 

Originally posted by Jb0311NY
Nice evade on my question btw concerning your opinion. Guess you just wanted to "argue" before kickoff. Glad I could help!!!
Have a great day!

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Jb0311NY]

Say what? You think I was evading your question?

Try stating your question clearly again. And if you want to hold an adult conversation, stop with the sniping.

Nevermind. I'm a sniper right?

You need to forgive your self JSO. I don't know what happened to you to make you so passive agressive, but you do have friends if you want to honestly speak to them. (right here even)
You know I asked for your opinion, but I dont even care now.
I hope thesse arnt your true colors, I have much hope that you will value human life over your previous standard.
Even if you don't I forgive you. I would be your friend, I wouldnt turn my back on you.
Take care. I'm done sniping at you right?

I think the big point most people are missing is that he ALLEGEDLY stole the items. Obviously the vast majority didn't bother reading the article, and are just going on the OP. I've tripped the alarm at Walls*Mart many times, simply 'cause the cashier forgot to demagnetize an item. The article doesn't state details, so no one can say whether the man was 'some poor fella' or a 'lifetime petty thug'. Save your assumptions. Stick to the facts. Fact is, a small group restrained a single individual for a perceived crime, wich resulted in the individuals death. One can (and has) argued both sides of whether or not the group had a right to do what they did. But I think I have to agree with the one poster that said it simply wasn't in their job descriptions to do so. People keep coming back to the 400 dollars worth of stuff. I have to wonder just what it was he stole. Most of the expensive items are under lock-and-key. So it was most likely a bunch of petty housewares items and things? Like I said, the devils' in the details, and unfortunately we don't have all of those. So I don't think anyone is qualified to speculate on the tragedy (or lack thereof) of this situation. I really would've liked a more thorough article on this, perhaps then some of the posters attitudes and opinions would be validated (or not, as the case may be).

Chrono

reply to post by jsobecky


Snatching an old lady's purse is a felony, with assault and in my earlier post I tried to describe the rightful use of escalation of force.

Walmart's merchandise is not an old lady, but you defintly make points to argue about.

We need to value life, freedom, and stop the corporate tyranny that rules the world.

Peace to you all, and I would give my life for the idea that you could truley have it.