|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 08/12/05 - 17:39 Post subject:
| Running Brewer wrote: | | rtpd113 wrote: | I am sure that this is not his first run in with the law. The employees and Walmart are not criminally liable in his death but the civil case will be an easy win for the family.
Let's just suppose if he did not steal, he would not have died. |
what kind of BS comment is this? You know nothing about the man and you can determind that this wasn't his first offense and that he is guilty? I thought you were a cop, not a judge. |
I am willing to bet I am right. 16 years of experience that is all.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/12/05 - 17:41 Post subject:
secondly, I stand by my comment. If did not steal he would not have died. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/12/05 - 19:03 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | | secondly, I stand by my comment. If did not steal he would not have died. Period. |
Why? Maybe I'm not understanding but what you are saying reminds me of the SNL Salem Witch trials skit where "if she's a witch she'll float". If he was guilty of theft, he'll die? Why?
And, if he's a repeat offender, he deserves to have died? Help me understand your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
ShannonG
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Mar 2003
Posts: 4858
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/12/05 - 19:10 Post subject:
| cherylpf wrote: | | rtpd113 wrote: | | secondly, I stand by my comment. If did not steal he would not have died. Period. |
Why? Maybe I'm not understanding but what you are saying reminds me of the SNL Salem Witch trials skit where "if she's a witch she'll float". If he was guilty of theft, he'll die? Why?
And, if he's a repeat offender, he deserves to have died? Help me understand your comments. |
People around here said the same thing. "He got what was coming to him." No life is worth a projection TV or a bag of diapers.
Employees should be trained in confrontation of shoplifters in a non violent manner.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/12/05 - 19:26 Post subject:
I understand what you're saying RTPD, that chances are the man was stealing and therefore, WILLINGLY put himself in a dangerous position.
I comprehend that. Your attitude seems a little cold, though.
According to our justice system, he is allowed a fair trial IN A COURTROOM, in front of a judge and jury of his peers.
Not a mob of security guards who thought they saw something. Haven't you said that eyewitnesses aren't always the most reliable people because they all see/saw different things during the heat of the moment?
You of all people should know how dangerous mob mentality is, also. It seems that they decided to be judge jury and executioner all in one fell swoop. That seems not only wrong but way out of proportion to the crime.
Even our justice system wouldn't have sentenced him to death for shoplifting diapers.
And, if he was a repeat offender, why wasn't he barred entry to the store? Often stores bar entry to people who are PROVEN shoplifters.
I guess Walmart doesn't have to bar entry to repeat offenders, because they make sure the offenders don't live to repeat their mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/12/05 - 20:32 Post subject:
What I mean/meant was I am not condoning the employees behavior in any way. That is what the police are to be called for and handle. We are better trained for that.
The bottom line, if he did not make a choice to steal he would not have been in the situation. If he would have paid and walked out like every other person he would never have gotten himself in the situation and likely lived.
It is a senseless waste of life in my mind. A lot of people are going to be hurt by a bad decision. I deal with that stuff every single say.
That being said, the employees were way out of line. There was enough photographic evidence and employees could have followed him to his car and gotten his tag and the PD could have followed up.
Lots of blame to be passed here.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/12/05 - 20:34 Post subject:
| airehead wrote: | I
And, if he was a repeat offender, why wasn't he barred entry to the store? Often stores bar entry to people who are PROVEN shoplifters.
|
people cannot be banned from public places without restraining orders. People have a right to move about. Since theft is not a violent crime that is how the law is viewed.
They could ask him to leave or just have someone shadow him the whole time to make it uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/12/05 - 20:43 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | | airehead wrote: | I
And, if he was a repeat offender, why wasn't he barred entry to the store? Often stores bar entry to people who are PROVEN shoplifters.
|
people cannot be banned from public places without restraining orders. People have a right to move about. Since theft is not a violent crime that is how the law is viewed.
They could ask him to leave or just have someone shadow him the whole time to make it uncomfortable. |
When I was younger and worked at a clothing store in the mall, the chain I worked for barred shoplifters who had been caught from ever returning to that store. (Mainly it was to discourage teens from stealing at their favorite hangouts, I guess). Has the law changed?
I think you are completely right that they could have shadowed him.
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/12/05 - 20:49 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | | people cannot be banned from public places without restraining orders. |
Wal-Mart is a private business, not a public place.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/12/05 - 20:59 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: | | rtpd113 wrote: | | people cannot be banned from public places without restraining orders. |
Wal-Mart is a private business, not a public place. |
actual since it is open to the public technically people cannot be barred, but it happens. I just remember hearing case law by judges making it a conditon of bail for theives not to return and how it is really not allowed.
If called to a place of business for that short of a restraining order or some kind of certified document we would only escort someone out, not arrest them.
|
|
|
|
|
mrbill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 1235
Location: Location: Location...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/13/05 - 18:43 Post subject:
| kristin31 wrote: | | cherylpf wrote: | | kristin31 wrote: | | They don't have the proof he was shoplifting. It's downright inhumane to force someone to lie on burning hot pavement with no shirt on. That's just sick. Give some people a badge and all of a sudden they think they're god. |
And it was walmart employees. The only badge I'm aware of that they would have is the one that says their name and "Always low prices".
I also don't see where he is a repeat offender RTPD. Why can we assume he would not have died if he was innocent? |
Oh. I thought it was the Wal-mart security employees! You know, the rent-a-cops (but they are not real cops, they just get all puffed up with a wee bit of authority).
I didn't mean any offense to real police officers and their badges.
For god's sake, if it's the regular employees (clerks and such) that is even more despicable! |
That was my question!! Where were the Security Guards?? I can't believe that this is company policy to handcuff someone in the parking lot until they stop moving. It doesn't say that the POLICE were called anywhere. Wouldn't you call the POLICE if shoplifting was involved??
I don't get it....
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Jenn
Fresh, Hot & Wild
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 7935
Location: Suite 550
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/14/05 - 17:58 Post subject:
| mrbill wrote: | That was my question!! Where were the Security Guards?? I can't believe that this is company policy to handcuff someone in the parking lot until they stop moving. It doesn't say that the POLICE were called anywhere. Wouldn't you call the POLICE if shoplifting was involved??
I don't get it.... |
Cops are usually called after the shoplifter is caught. It has been my experience that most shoplifters are taken to the back of the store or to a room in the front of the store where they are held until the police show up.
These people knew better than to let him sit on the asphalt like that. They live in Houston. They weren't walking around barefoot were they? No, because the pavement would have seriously burned them. Murderers. Maybe not intentional, but murderers all the same.
I do understand rtpd's point.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/14/05 - 18:38 Post subject:
| mrbill wrote: |
That was my question!! Where were the Security Guards?? I can't believe that this is company policy to handcuff someone in the parking lot until they stop moving. It doesn't say that the POLICE were called anywhere. Wouldn't you call the POLICE if shoplifting was involved??
I don't get it.... |
I doubt it is - but then, Wal-Mart does have a lot of its own rules with regard to stuff (Read The United States of Walmart, by John Dicker). Security or in-house surveillance types would do the cufing, not the regular staff (although it would bother me that the in-house would have cuffs).
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/15/05 - 09:07 Post subject:
During my retail management days I always remember that we were always told not to go after shoplifters. That was to be left up to security and security only. There were really strict guidelines about how security could go after someone as well. They had to actually see the person stealing and then they had to physically leave the store with the merchandise...then they could go after them.
Apparently there were a lot of liability issues so that was why we had to follow so many rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/15/05 - 09:10 Post subject:
Just another reason why not to shop there.
|
|
|
|
