Hijexx wrote:
Wal-Mart LP's Kill Suspected Shoplifter

Man held down on burning pavement until he died

Wal-Mart loss prevention workers tackled a man suspected of stealing diapers - a new father with a two month old child - holding him down with a choke hold and knee to the back while he was shirtless on the scalding pavement of a Wal-Mart parking lot in Texas.

The incident was witnessed by dozens of shoppers, including a prominent Texas attorney, Charles Portz:

Charles Portz said he was getting out of his car when he saw a heavy blonde haired man being chased by five people who appeared to be security or store employees. He said he saw them wrestling the man to the ground. "The blacktop was extremely hot," said Portz "He had no shirt on and they wouldn't let him up off the blacktop." He said one of the men had Driver in a chokehold and had his knee in the back of his neck as the men tried to subdue him. "He kept trying to get up and they kept pushing him back down," Portz said.

According to Portz, Driver began to plead with them men. "He's begging, 'Please call an ambulance, let me up, do something, I'm gonna die," said Portz. He said the loss prevention employees called the police more than once, but another bystander called for an ambulance after realizing Driver was in trouble. Portz said he eventually began to plead with the Walmart employees. "I told them, this guy doesn't look like he's breathing," Portz said, "They said, 'He's all right." He says he continued to plead with the men, pointing out that the man's fingernails were turning gray. "They said he's just high on something," adding, "They just kept him pinned down for twenty minutes or more until the ambulance came." He said he believed Driver was dead when the ambulance left with him, but he was not certain.

The store employees could not have known that the witness who was pleading with them to let Driver get up from the hot pavement was a high profile Houston attorney, from the Portz and Portz law firm. He said after the man was handcuffed he continued trying in vain to persuade the Walmart employees to allow him to get up, even pointing out that a second pair of cuffs could be used to attach the ones already on Driver to a nearby truck trailer. "The problem is they kept him down on the blistering concrete with no shirt on," Portz reiterated. He said law enforcement arrived at about the same time as the ambulance.

* * *

Very sad. I believe people who practice frontier justice should receive it as well. I know the death of this piece of shit employee won't bring the guy back to life, but he definately deserves a similar fate.

At least have him held down in a choke hold on hot pavement for about half an hour, let him see how he fares.

Do you always support 'eye for eye' justice? Not criticizing, just curious.

flynn23 wrote:
Do you always support 'eye for eye' justice? Not criticizing, just curious.

It's kind of on a case by case basis, definately not black and white. I felt pretty strongly about this one for some reason. It seemed so excessive and senseless. I could almost see the jackass doing this, going on his power trip as he took out his frustrations on a suspect. Definately a response in me, it struck a nerve. Probably because of past experiences where I was subdued by a police officer (twice) when I was completely innocent.

For this one, eye for eye is fitting to me.

Hijexx wrote:
Wal-Mart LP's Kill Suspected Shoplifter

Man held down on burning pavement until he died

Two observations:
1. Most retailers do not advise security guards to get in physical skirmishes with shoplifters. (Read the last post on that link, from Maco dated 8/15.) Shrinkage is not worth the legal costs associated with accidentally killing a shoplifter. If WalMart's policy is to chase people down they actually are responsible and you can bet a wrongful death suit will be forthcoming. WalMart will settle the suit. This is an example of why you face potential legal problems if you kill a robber who has broken into your house (depending on the circumstances). If it wasn't a tort, WalMart could kill anyone who refused to leave after being asked to by a security guard.

2. There is widespread press coverage right now because some nutjob walked into a WalMart in Arizona and killed two employees. Google says 317 stories. Press coverage of this incident, where a poorly trained Walmart employee killed a shoplifter, is extremely hard to find. A spattering of local news coverage. No national coverage. Some blogs, mostly lefties who don't like Walmart.

Why did one story get lots of coverage and the other got almost none? There seem to be two options.

1. People simply wouldn't be interested in reading this WalMart story. Its not newsworthy. The random shooting story IS newsworthy.

Why?

A. Completely innocent victims are more sympathetic then someone guilty of stealing a bag of diapers?
B. People who are gainfully employed are more sympathetic then people who are poor?
C. Random deaths at the hand of crazy people are more scary then random deaths at the hand of poorly trained security guards?
D. Insane killers are more interesting to read about then cases of extreme negligence resulting in death?

2. This story would be interesting to the reading populace, but it hasn't been run because the Newspapers are not interested in running it.

Why?

1. Newspapers don't like to run stories that aren't in the interests of a large advertiser?
2. Newspapers don't want to focus attention on the Security Guard, who was simply operating out of ignorance and doesn't deserve to be at the center of a national brewhaha.

Am I missing any? Which reason is the most compelling?

Decius wrote:

Hijexx wrote:
Wal-Mart LP's Kill Suspected Shoplifter

Man held down on burning pavement until he died

...

Am I missing any? Which reason is the most compelling?

People aren't afraid of being caught shoplifting and killed by the security guards because most people don't shoplift. More people probably work or shop in wal-mart though, so that has more impact.

What do you mean "Gainfully" employed at Wal-Mart??? HAHAHA!

People aren't afraid of being caught shoplifting and killed by the security guards because most people don't shoplift. More people probably work or shop in wal-mart though, so that has more impact.

Perhaps, but I still think the story would have been interesting to readers.

Decius wrote:

Hijexx wrote:
Wal-Mart LP's Kill Suspected Shoplifter

Man held down on burning pavement until he died

Two observations:
1. Most retailers do not advise security guards to get in physical skirmishes with shoplifters. (Read the last post on that link, from Maco dated 8/15.) Shrinkage is not worth the legal costs associated with accidentally killing a shoplifter. If WalMart's policy is to chase people down they actually are responsible and you can bet a wrongful death suit will be forthcoming. WalMart will settle the suit. This is an example of why you face potential legal problems if you kill a robber who has broken into your house (depending on the circumstances). If it wasn't a tort, WalMart could kill anyone who refused to leave after being asked to by a security guard.

2. There is widespread press coverage right now because some nutjob walked into a WalMart in Arizona and killed two employees. Google says 317 stories. Press coverage of this incident, where a poorly trained Walmart employee killed a shoplifter, is extremely hard to find. A spattering of local news coverage. No national coverage. Some blogs, mostly lefties who don't like Walmart.

Why did one story get lots of coverage and the other got almost none? There seem to be two options.

1. People simply wouldn't be interested in reading this WalMart story. Its not newsworthy. The random shooting story IS newsworthy.

Why?

A. Completely innocent victims are more sympathetic then someone guilty of stealing a bag of diapers?
B. People who are gainfully employed are more sympathetic then people who are poor?
C. Random deaths at the hand of crazy people are more scary then random deaths at the hand of poorly trained security guards?
D. Insane killers are more interesting to read about then cases of extreme negligence resulting in death?

2. This story would be interesting to the reading populace, but it hasn't been run because the Newspapers are not interested in running it.

Why?

1. Newspapers don't like to run stories that aren't in the interests of a large advertiser?
2. Newspapers don't want to focus attention on the Security Guard, who was simply operating out of ignorance and doesn't deserve to be at the center of a national brewhaha.

Am I missing any? Which reason is the most compelling?

This incident makes me nauseous - it reminds me of the woman that left a man to bleed to death in her windshield after hitting him with her car.

To address your (rhetorical?) questions Decius, I think that the issue is that people who are poor/shoplifters/homeless are not valued in society. They play a devalued role.

The rules of society are different for people who are devalued than those who are valued. Of course, I'm stealing this theory from Wolf Wolfensberger (NYU professor). His theory is that if you are a person who does not have valued social roles, then you are subject to abuse, neglect and possible death. The general rules of society do not apply to you. The fact that this incident occured, and the fact that it isn't on the front page of the newspaper both tend to confirm his theory. There is an assumption in society that those who do not have valued roles (as defined by society) are less valuable and perhaps even deserve death-making.

Decius wrote:

Am I missing any? Which reason is the most compelling?

Which one happened first?

Don't get me wrong, I'm as tempted as anyone to say that it's because we identify more with being a normal everyday shopper than a poor shoplifter, but it *could* just be a matter of timing. Probably not.

That and "crazy fuck shoots up XYZ" is a story with inherent resonance because it happens periodically and has already been built up into a kind of cultural situation. security guard killings just don't ring the same way.

k wrote:

Decius wrote:

Am I missing any? Which reason is the most compelling?

Which one happened first?

The security guard situation happened weeks ago.

Hijexx wrote:
Wal-Mart LP's Kill Suspected Shoplifter

Man held down on burning pavement until he died

* * *

Very sad. I believe people who practice frontier justice should receive it as well. I know the death of this piece of shit employee won't bring the guy back to life, but he definately deserves a similar fate.

At least have him held down in a choke hold on hot pavement for about half an hour, let him see how he fares.

Burn 'im! Burn the witch! Wait, I mean 'security guard'.

I forwarded this on to several places, and I am also suprised by the utter lack of information about the incident. I hope his family collects a ton of money.

OTOH, were I in his shoes, I wouldn't be in cuffs.

There is absolutely no way these two guards should escape a manslaughter charge at the least. I am pretty sure Wal-Mart will backpedal like mad as to whether or not the guards were authorized to pin someone to the ground to restrain them in the first place. I am *very* sure that they're going to be summarily fired just for *keeping* the man on the asphalt after being subdued. That right there is going to play a heavy role during their trial.

The thing that sucks is that there's not much chance the lawyer who was on hand when this happened is going to be allowed to testify, but he can't be the only person around who would be willing to recount the events to a judge and jurors. Those guards need to be put in jail, or at the very least barred from that kind of work for the forseeable future.

--

I'd like to add that nonsense like this is the reason you want to keep a cool head if you're ever approached by the employees of a store and accused of shoplifting (or ask you to "come with them"). They can stop you and _ask_ you to submit to a search. They can _ask_ that you wait for the police to come and search you if you don't submit to their pat-down search. (Indeed, if you're very sure you haven't done anything wrong, you should insist on the police searching you, just because it avoids a lot of problems.) Private sector employees are never authorized to engage in any kind of "intrusive" search like a strip search. They are almost *never* authorized to use any kind of force at all against you if you don't use force against them, and generally aren't authorized to do much of anything to you (other than ordering you to leave) if you're not endangering anyone. The problem is that quite frequently they're poorly trained, or improperly informed that they're allowed to do all sorts of things, so...

Tell them outright you've not stolen anything. You may, at your option, voluntarily let them pat you down (don't let them stick their hands into your pockets! If you had something sharp in there they could hurt themselves and we don't want that.) and voluntarily empty your pockets on some nearby surface where your belongings and their merchandise can't be confused, and if that's not enough for them, it's simply time to bring in the police. I wouldn't recommend even bantering with them to see if you can get them angry (because they will likely *want* to play that particular game so they can claim you were being "aggressive") but simply and flatly request that they call in the police if that's not enough for them. From this point on, stand right where you are unless you're impeding the flow of traffic, keep your hands in sight, and don't let them take you beyond the sight of witnesses (you wouldn't want them to magically "find" something on a shelf that could theoretically have been in your pockets in some alternate universe). Call the police *yourself* or ask someone nearby to do it on their cellular phone if you think the p... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]