This is funny because NOBODY has said that it was okay for the man to shoplift. ... and NOBODY has said it was okay for the secutiry guards to kill the guy.
Im not denying that he wasnt killed by the walmart employee's. But they dont have anything to do with this guy if. 1. He doesnt steal. 2. He doesnt run 3. He doesnt fight. Now even if he commits 1 and 2. Nothing of this nature probably even remotely occurs. Being hostile and fighting caused them to cuff him and hold him down. No offense, I will state, HIS FAULT. The guards are guilty of negligence, and poor judgement, but they didnt instigate this situation.
I'd really like you to give us an in depth analysis of this. I'd like you to explain how what the shoplifter did contributed more so to his death than the actions of the security personnel (which directly caused the symptoms and resulting death). Please also provide pie charts showing the appropriate percentages of said contribution for all parties involved. Thank you. This is out of hand. Stop with all the BS about "he put himself in the situation." Yeah, he put himself in a situation that was cause for lawful, legal, appropriate punishment for shoplifting. That's it. The resulting actions of the security personnel was unlawful, negligent, inappropriate, and generally cruel. A man lost his life as a result of THESE ACTIONS. You can say COULDA WOULDA SHOULD all day long. Nothing changes the fact that a man lost his life for NO good reason due to gross negligence.
Yet even if... 1. He does steal 2. He does run 3. He does fight puts him in a positiong to be suffocated to death. Only employees going beyond reason can do that. As for him fighting my neice who was there and other witnesses believe he was fighting as much to try and breath as he was to get away from the security guards. So fighting might well have been his only chance to survive.
If a person intends to take your property/possessions, what can you legally do to stop the person? I mean, this situation seems similar to where if a kid breaks into your house, and it is clear he is only after your laptop (and not to kill you), then you can't shoot him?
How is that similar.....at all? I think the law differs greatly on these two situations. But there's no comparison. How would you decipher if a kid that breaks into your house is clearly after your laptop anyway. Do you stand there watching him, after he breaks in, and say, "Don't mind me kid, I am just observing you to see what you are after, and since I can clearly see it's my laptop.....I won't shoot you." Take 10, come back and try again.
The kid grabs your laptop and is on his way out your window. Can you shoot him to stop him from escaping? Clearly, he has no intent to harm you at this point (he's trying to escape), but he is stealing your laptop.
I believe Texas law allows a resident to use deadly force if someone breaks into your home. There are some grey areas there though related to the actual location of the perpetrator. In other words, I believe they have to be completely inside the home. You're not supposed to be able to shoot before they have completely entered the home. At least, that's what I had a lawyer friend tell me. There have been lawsuits where a trespasser was shot in the process of breaking in, or on the way out (partially or completely outside of the home), and the criminal sued the homeowner and won. Someone breaking into your house definitely carries a different set of rules than that of shoplifter. However, would I personally shoot him? No. But that's a personal thing. I would try at all costs not to take a human life.
Ok - so let's all agree to this: He shouldn't have shoplifted and deserved to be subdued by security. He shouldn't have fled and deserved to be subdued by security. He shouldn't have fought and deserved to be subdued by security. In doing the above, the man placed himslef in a very bad situation, but didn't deserve to die. The guards shouldn't have left him face down after cuffing him. The guards should have re-positioned or relocated him once he was cuffed so that he could breathe. Once he was re-positioned, the guards should have waited for the police. The guards should not have forced his suffocation or left him face down.
Not getting into the debate here, but a few new details have emerged. Cameras at the store showed that 9 minutes elapsed between the time the suspect stopped moving and laid motionless on the ground and when the ambulance arrived. Ambulance logs showed it took them 2 minutes to arrive. Two eyewitnesses stated that they tried to render aid to the suspect. One man was detained by Wal-Mart security and told he would be arrested when he tried to give the suspect CPR. Another woman offered to give him CPR because his hands were gray, his face was blue and he wasn't moving and guards told her that if she attempted to aid him in any way, she would be detained and arrested. It was supposedly at this point that someone inside the store called 911. EMS said that no one gave him CPR despite being told to the contrary by security and he was unable to be revived when they got there. He was still face down and cuffed when they found him in the parking lot. Apparently, there were numerous eyewitnesses, video of the incident from store cameras and tons of witness statements. They haven't released the autopsy report, but the suspect did not have drugs or alcohol in his system.
Jeff, by the way, I am sorry about your relative / friend, that must be a tough way to lose someone in a lot of ways. Regrets and condoloences to you and yours.
Among all the offensive things Jorge posts here, it's really gross that after a BBS member has lost a family member in tragic circumstances he would characterize those who have a problem with the situation as "pro-shoplifter." Calling war opponents "pro-Saddam" is one thing, but this is just off the charts. I don't know the nature of the relationship but I'm sorry for your loss, Jeff. I haven't been around much lately. Are you still taking that road trip? Have you taken it already? If you haven't and you're still doing it, email me if you're going to make it through Providence.
I think we can also agree to add: - Once they had him detained, the security people could have allowed the witnesses or employees who tried to provide a blanket or some other fabric to do so, to alleviate the burn of the hot concrete. - Once the guy's hands turned gray (for God's sake) they could have allowed the ones who offered to provide CPR to do so -- especially since he apparently stopped breathing seven minutes before the ambulance was called. - Not allowing the above, and even threatening arrest to the ones who tried to help a dying man, was not only stupid -- it was criminal and cruel. This doesn't sound like manslaughter or negligent homicide to me. It sounds like murder.
Thanks. It's the relative of a close friend. I had to postpone because I had a bunch of needed work done on my house. I am definitely going, but it will just have to wait a few months.
The arguments attempting to justify this man's death are about as absurd as they come, given the testimonials and evidence available to us. If I drive a car to work, I am taking a small risk that I might die or suffer injury as a result. However, if I do happen to die by some fluke accident due to negligence by another driver, my death should not be justified and shrugged off simply because I chose to drive a car and 'put myself in that situation'. Everyone knows that would be ridiculous. So when this man chose to shoplift, he put himself in a situation where he has an extremely tiny chance of dying or suffering bodily harm as a result, which again seems trivial and irrelevant. It seems absurd, but that logic is practically the basis of a few poster's justification for his death. There is no direct natural correlation between shoplifting and dying, definitely no more so than there is with driving a car, so it is preposterous to say that he 'put himself in that situation'. There are laws and protocols that indicate how lawbreakers should be dealt with that were not followed in this instance. What happened to that man was well out of boundaries, and measures should be taken to punish the security team and Walmart for their gross incompetence.
Murder would require the killing to have been intentional. I seriously doubt the security guards intended to kill they guy. It looks more like a case of unintenionally causing death due to recklessness. The guards should be charged with involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide or something like that.
With Jeff's recent updates.....I will give up on my position that the security guards should not be charged. Since they didnt let anyone revive him, they should be charged with involuntary manslaughter or whatever drunk drivers that kill people are charged with. But I still beleive that what the guy did is wrong and due to his actions, I still can't feel completely sorry for him.
