Wow, this sounds like case right out of the book in intro to business classes. Except the guy doesn't die. I didn't take the class, I just remember a buddy studying this. Anyways, if he did shoplift, I don't think it means that the Wal-Mart guys are immune from any trouble for accidentally killing him. Maybe in Florida though.
Neither does killing a guy. If he was shoplifting, the stuff he would've gotten away with doesn't equal the millions they will hopefully pay for a wrongful death. I'll take the accounts of eyewitnesses over those who weren't there.
If a society of the 21st century has to look for justifications to the deaths of offenders of petty crimes - shoplifting or "disorderly conduct", then we might as well go back stone age.
I would like to know the whole story before passing judgement on how why they would not allow him to even sit up. I'm sure if they used that harsh force then he had tried to flee and fight back handily before they resorted to that. I seriously doubt they told him to stop and he complied and they threw him down. He probably started running and fighting back pretty intensely. Then it becomes personal safety versus that of the criminal's safety and you subdue him to the point that he's not able to be a danger. On the pavement for that long in the heat sounds excessive, as does not calling the police/ambulance immediately, but I honestly think if you shoplift, then run and fight with security you're looking for trouble.
Key word...if. If he did, he would've been caught and dealt with eventually. There are enough cameras in the store and the employees could've easily taken down his license number and called the police. Instead, a man is dead after many eyewitnesses heard and saw him yelling that he could not breathe and pleaded for an ambulance.
I've no love for shoplifters but if Jeff's post is even half accurate (and I've no reason to think it isnt) this was way beyond all reasonable force. Wrestle him down, cuff him (or otherwise tie him up), put him in the shade and wait for the cops. Even that exceeds their stated policy.
Not sure why we're debating IF he shoplifted. Does it matter? Suppose he did...would that make his death OK?
Which Walmart was this at? I knew somebody that worked at Walmart a few years ago and he said they were EXTREMELY anal about shoplifting. Hell, look at the amount of cameras they have mounted to the roof. Sounds like a pretty bad situation involving overly aggressive employees.
I never said that killing him was the right thing to do. I'm not saying the security guards were right or wrong. What I'm saying is, the "wait for the police" solution doesn't work. And I agree that the only people that can really state whether or not the guy's rights were violated were the people who actually saw it happen.
Why not? What's the harm in calling the cops, following the guy to his car, getting the license number and then use that information along with the video cameras inside to arrest the guy. It's not like this person was a child molester or a murderer.
While I agree with Drox that waiting for police simply doesn't work, I'm pretty comfortable concluding his 'rights' were violated if he ended up dead after a 10-30 minute struggle on the hot pavement.
What if he has a knife or gun starts shooting - kills employees - kills onlookers etc. ~ there is zero argument for what they did to that man.
When I first read the article I was like "another criminal's family wants sympathy boo hoo", but hearing more, the employees need to stand trial. Security though needs to have the authority to persue and detain with reasonable force. Wal-Mart gets sued often and probably loses millions yearly from theft. To them, this is another day...although employees don't kill a guy every day. They won't feel a million dollar judgment.
There is zero argument for their excessive force, however, if these employees were hired to work security then their pursuit cannot be called excessive. Their jobs are to stop theft. Police can't be patrolling everywhere and Wal-Mart as a private business needs to hire its own security.
moving to D&D in 4....3....2....1.... Herein lies the difficulty... Getting a guy's license number and contacting police is not very effective in stopping crime. The police don't proactively search for those people and the car/plates may be stolen. This solution may be too passive, and this is probably why Wal-Mart has a more aggressive security policy. But obviously this sounds like it's on the opposite extreme. Abuse of authority and overuse of power resulting in death is not the answer either. It sounds like, what they should have done is pick him up off the ground after they had him handcuffed and escorted him to a secure area. Forcing him to suffocate face down on the ground after being cuffed and subdued is wrong (assuming that's what happened - again, none of us were there).
I hope not. Unless Clutch let's me back in! But that's apparently what some businesses do. I have a friend who worked as an undercover security employee for a major department store. Their policy was once he was outside the door, there was to be no contact with that person. It seems that with that many cameras in a store, they should've been able to get to the guy before he even left the store. I need to find yesterday's article. None of us were there, but eyewitnesses say this is what happened along with him telling them he couldn't breathe, was dying and pleaded for an ambulance until he took his last breath.
I don't think anyone would argue that shoplifting is a bad idea. I also don't think anyone would have a problem with security arresting, detaining and even restraining if necessary. BUT, there is a big jump between restraint and suffocation. That's why this is a big deal. Less than $100 worth of merchandise is not worth the life of anyone. Some of the eyewitness reports were downright gruesome. Ugh.
