You know, and maybe one of our attorneys can educate us, I've been wondering what kind of charges would be brought against the security guys if they are arrested for his death. Is it manslaughter? Criminally negligent homicide?
Both parties were wrong, that guy shouldn't have ran, and the security thugs should have eased up, damn, hot pavement can not feel good and they should have picked him up to talk to him, then he wouldn't be dead.
I use the term "authorities" because it's more accurate than saying "police". Clearly, the people who subdued the man were not policemen. I use the word "authorities" to refer to people who have some sort of authorization to attempt to enforce the law. Though securty guards aren't cops, they shouldn't be completely disregarded. Some of them are cop-wannabe idiots, while others are well-trained, licensed to carry firearms, and capable of doing a good job. It appears, however, that the security guards in this situation probably overstepped their bounds. And I think you misunderstood my previous post - I said that proper use of authority would allow a man to breathe, and that it appears that that did not happen in this case. I think i'm arguing with myself again, then. No I'm not. Shut up!
I think security people who carry guns are usually off-duty cops and licensed peace officers. I just wanted to make it clear that these men were obviously not police, because I don't want to besmirch the legit tactics that real cops use. Seems to me that it's likely Wal-Mart doesn't use off-duty cops as security because they're expensive. I'm pretty sure most police belong to unions. Typically when a man dies while in your handcuffs that's a safe assumption. Whether these men actually had any legal right to detain him will come out in the wash, I suppose. Um, oh. Glad we agree, then!
I have sympathy for the family since the guy is dead, but obviously the shoplifter brought the *situation* on himself. If he doesn't go in to the store and put fake stickers on merchandise to try to smuggle them out, then none of this happens. Heck, even with the shoplifting, if he doesn't run and resist being detained, none of this happens. I have zero sympathy that his face or chest was hot due to a hot pavement when he brought that situation on himself. Do you think the security personnel wanted to be out in the heat, wrestling with a combative suspect? Doubtful. I'll give security the benefit of the doubt (since they weren't the one stealing) and say that they didn't have the intention of killing the guy. It should also be noted that we don't know that he suffocated. He could have had a pre-existing condition, drug use, etc that contributed to it. Either way, I believe it is hard to blame Wal-Mart as a company for the death, when it is clear from the descriptions that the shoplifter was responsible for creating the situation. This case will be over-sensationalized and turned into a "big business" versus small guy, Robin-hood style argument. People will also sensationalize the heat, the force used, the pavement, etc. It will probably be settled out of court, if I were to guess (in order to avoid bad PR for Wal-Mart), but I wonder how Prop 12 will play into this. Will non-economic damages be capped at $250,000?
Unfortunately this occurs more than often in law enforcement when the struggle becomes more personal than professional. This is worse because rent-a-cops have no real authority beyond the confines of private property. The security disregarded the pleads of the eyewitnesses because they felt they could rub it in at the evildoer while staying legal within their bounds. A lot of lawyers are going to be rich soon.
This is not necessarily the case. I've heard all kinds of stories from friends who are in law enforcement. A guy in the back seat of a police car just flat out died once. Turns out he had swallowed a bunch of illegal drugs to avoid the cops. Bad idea.
Let's say he was shoplifting something really, really valuable and didn't stop when they came after him. Is using this kind of force warrented? I am sure there is a debate in here about the level of wrong doing- murder, manslaughter, excessive force- but I can't see how a man should be treated this way under these circumstances. It's fricken shoplifting!
I think your logic is flawed here. By your logic... If a person shoplifts, he should expect to be severely physically abused and potentially killed for items that cost less than what some people spend on a night out at the Astros game in the cheap seats. I agree he should not have been shoplifting. There are extenuating circumstances to why he was doing it, but I'm not getting into it. Suffice it to say he was stealing diapers not watches or jewelry or a TV and you get the picture. But, the use of excessive force is NEVER EVER warranted in this situation. If you get out of line at a bar, should you expect to be shot by a bouncer? If you skip out on your check at dinner, should they punch you in the face? There is a reason they use the term REASONABLE in these situations. What these guys did was completely and totally unreasonable. Period. I'm still trying to figure out where along the way money and profit became more important than people. How exactly did that happen? It seems like our society has increasingly placed a higher value on a thing than a person. That's just sad.
Jeff, your exaggerations are too extreme. It's not about shooting people who cut in line or corporations valuing profits over lives. That type of over-dramatization and demagoguery severely weakens your case. Obviously, Wal-Mart does not train its employees to use lethal force in shoplifting cases and this is a matter on a very local level between 2-3 employees and a shoplifter. There were three problems with the shoplifter: 1) He was stealing 2) He ran from security 3) He violently resisted, to the point where his shirt is ripped off, he continues to resist/run, and it takes multiple security guards to subdue him #2 pretty much cements his guilt in the shoplifting case, in my mind. So the "he didn't do it" excuse simply becomes disingenuous. #2 and #3 create the potential for rough treatment, not #1, which serves as the basis for your over-sensationalized argument. This isn't about killing for a $3.76 rolled-back pricetag on a bottle of shampoo. This is about physically restraining a thief who was willing to be physical to evade apprehension. Had he submitted himself to the security guards to sort out the situation in a rational manner, none of this happens. He didn't. He chose to violently resist arrest -- after he chose to rob Wal-Mart, mind you. The shoplifter wanted it rough and he got more than he bargained for. It's a tragedy that he died in the parking lot under those circumstances, but it is impossible to argue that he did not bring the situation on himself.
Now I remember why I don't ever argue with you, TJ. It is a complete and total waste of the space on this server. Last time I make that mistake.
Wow! That's all I can say. Did you not read the other posts of eye-witness accounts? I never knew ripping someones shirt off, pinning them on the ground and having 2 men force all their strength and weight on a man under sieze in handcuffs was "rational". If you have a suspect in handcuffs and police are on there way in a matter of minutes is it necessary to sufficate him and keep torturing him? When several people asked the security guards if the man was okay? Any "rational" security guard(s) should stop and think for a second and realize WTF am I really doing? I bet these security guards were probably in the heat of the moment as was the suspect and everyone involved had addrenaline pumping but seriously, you know something's wrong when people around ask the same question.
To those that argue that the shoplifter did not bring the situation upon himself, I pose the following questions: 1) Would someone be more likely to suffocate/asfyxiate if they had been running and were short of breath? 2) Would physical restraint have been necessary had the shoplifter not run and resisted? 3) Would any of the situation have taken if the shoplifter had not traveled to Wal-Mart to steal from them? 4) Do you honestly believe that the security personnel intentionally attempted to kill the shoplifter?
This is one of the most idiotic post I've ever read. It's soo one sided and you didn't mention once about the security guards wrong doing. Your augument "it is impossible to argue that he did not bring the situation on himself" is pretty weak. Yea, lets just torture a dude and risk his life even though we got him handcuffed.
