Cops bust open face of Black Friday grandpa

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


When a police officer questions you and you deny it. Which is probably what he did. You can't solve a case with only one side of the story. Wait and see what the cops have to say for themselves. The truth will probably be somewhere between the man's story, and their story.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

When they realized that was a fast way to rake in revenue. It's been all the rage of the federal government for decades.

reply to post by Evolutionsend

It would have been nice if you had provided the link to CNN, but I found it anyway:

The grandson, Nicholas Nava, told CNN affiliate KNXV that Newman had grabbed one video game and put it under his shirt so that others jostling for the game didn't take it from him. One person alerted a police officer, who then approached Newman.

Source: www.cnn.com...

So in your opinion, it is fine for a bunch of teens to grab merchandise away from others, but it is not OK to resist them? I will admit that initially I thought it a bit strange that he would put the game inside his clothing, but considering the melee that is being reported, it makes perfect sense to try and sneak the game away from the jostling.

Also, by definition, the man did not shoplift. He was still inside the store, meaning that he had not stolen anything at that point. Even if he had intent to shoplift, he had not committed the crime. Yet, he was punished via physical violence by a more powerful adversary, without trial and without even a warning to cease and desist, who according to reports swept his feet knocking him to the hard floor without a single act of justification evidenced on the accused part. All this according to CNN reports.

If you want to talk about justice and fairness, how about the cops sweep the legs from under those teens who were grabbing merchandise out of the hands of others trying to shop as well? How about the ones who were committing open and overt acts of violence being subjected to violent restraint?

Or is violence by the police only acceptable when it is geared toward those who are simply trying to avoid a confrontation?

TheRedneck

reply to post by Evolutionsend

When a police officer questions you and you deny it. Which is probably what he did.

Shades of the Inquisition! Confess! Confess or we shall burn you as the witch shoplifter you are! Heretic!

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by GoldenRuled

 

I like this story. Certain people might argue the man was not trying to shoplift, and didn't deserve it. Those same people would argue the opposite if this old man were a young protester. In other words it would be his fault. Did the old man really think nothing was going to happen? Talk about naive.

HIS FAULT. Keep the merchandise where it can be seen, to do anything else is asking for trouble. If you don't like it go to a small business and shop.

BS. This isn't even close to shoplifting. You can put the goods in backpack if you so desire. You have to go past the registers without paying to make it shoplifting.

reply to post by TheRedneck


The problem probably occurred when he lied to a police officer. Want to piss off a cop? Lie to them. You're probably not going to hear about that from the news though.

If you're kind enough to let me use your phone, and I shove a dvd that belongs to you down my shirt when you aren't looking, and you see this, am I a thief? Will you wait until I've left your home to confront me about it? What will you do if I lie to you about having shoved it into my shirt when you know I did?

Personally I say step on the people that want to act up. That's just how I feel about it though. Given the situation I would alert an employee about the problem and ask them to get one for me. It's their business and their responsibility to ensure a positive shopping experience. Assuming they want me as a customer.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

When a police officer questions you and you deny it. Which is probably what he did. You can't solve a case with only one side of the story. Wait and see what the cops have to say for themselves. The truth will probably be somewhere between the man's story, and their story.

Actually, I want to hear what the WITNESSES have to say - not the cops.

I also read two things which bother me:

1 - According to the cops, there are no videotapes of the "incident". LMAO

AYFKM? This is a Walmart. Every square inch of that store's retail space is covered by at least one camera. It's the only way they build them. The truth (and the video) will eventually come out. Stay tuned...

2 - Supposedly the man was already in handcuffs when he was slammed to the ground. If that is indeed the case - the cops are in for some deep doo doo on this one.

reply to post by Riffrafter


I've been in the Assets protection room (camera room) of a few retail stores. They do not have that many cameras. Try one camera per hotbed area. They cover registers, electronics, doorways, and that's all.

They also employ plain clothed employees to spy on you.

Remember, surveillance costs money, and they're in the business of making it not spending it.

I am not really sure what the issue is here.The man got caught stuffing an item down his pants,shoplifting and unsanitary.He resisted arrest,got pummeled as a result of resisting.Not really out of the ordinary.

reply to post by Evolutionsend

If you are hiding something that belongs to me in my house, then yes, you at that point become a thief. But we are not talking about a private home; we are talking about a store where the customer has to physically bring the product to the front of the store to pay for it. He is not a thief for taking temporary possession in order to fulfill that requirement.

Argument invalid.

You say ask a store employee to get one for you? How do you even know there was a store employee within earshot? WalMart around here is notorious for not having anyone around when you need them... I have walked half the length of our store before trying to find assistance and finally just gave up and went elsewhere. The only place I always seem to find an employee is after I check out... after I have paid for my merchandise and am moving from the checkout register toward the exit door, in plain sight of everyone... then there is always someone there to "check my receipt". Translation: "call me a thief".

You say step on those who act up? You advocate violence for anyone who does something you don't like? Stop and think for a moment what kind of world we would live in if everyone took that approach... forget the law, forget proof, just beat down anyone who 'acts up'. That would quickly devolve into total chaos.

Had the cops detained him, held him and questioned him as to why he had covered up the game, observed him afterward to make sure he did indeed pay for it, I would say no harm, no foul. But I cannot and will not condone sudden unexpected physical violence by government representatives against people based on subjective impressions and unproven allegations.

TheRedneck

Here's the thing the police seem to have forgotten, unless the laws have changed since I worked in retail. It is not shoplifting or theft until you leave the store without paying for it. That poor man and that poor kid, he's probably going to be traumatized and grow up hating the police. Then the pricks had the nerve to go ahead and charge him with a crime he didn't commit because he never left the store with the item unpaid for. This in enraging.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

The problem probably occurred when he lied to a police officer. Want to piss off a cop? Lie to them. You're probably not going to hear about that from the news though.

If you're kind enough to let me use your phone, and I shove a dvd that belongs to you down my shirt when you aren't looking, and you see this, am I a thief? Will you wait until I've left your home to confront me about it? What will you do if I lie to you about having shoved it into my shirt when you know I did?

Personally I say step on the people that want to act up. That's just how I feel about it though. Given the situation I would alert an employee about the problem and ask them to get one for me. It's their business and their responsibility to ensure a positive shopping experience. Assuming they want me as a customer.

If you're trying to point fingers here, let's consider a constitutional point of view. Did the law have any probable cause asking the guy anything? I don't see where he did inside the store. From my point of view, the cop was out of line and the situation would have never happened had this cop been knowledgeable of his duty. When you are pulled over without probable cause beyond the traffic violation, you are only required to show identification and sign your ticket as a signature bond.

After busting up his face,they should have taken him to bar for some cold ones ,and started fresh entering into the christmas sprit.I think everyone would be happy with that result.

reply to post by TheRedneck


On black Friday electronics is the priority. They had employees there, they had cops there, they had plain clothed AP people there. You wouldn't need to look far to find someone.

When I worked retail, at my store they brought in 15 employees, and 5 AP people, to cover electronics alone. On black Friday there are so many eyes on you it's quite unnerving if you've actually worked retail before and go into a place. They knew what he was doing long before they approached him.

Walmart has the same rights you do. It says so under the law.

I find this whole thread so funny. If this guy was between 15-29 he'd be labeled a menace to society.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Stuffing an item under your shirt is probable cause for questioning.

Lying is probable cause for an arrest and further investigation.

Further investigation may lead to formal charges, or may not.


Ap, and the cops know the law. If they grab you out of line before you've crossed the door with an item, they're giving you a way out. My store manager did it a few times. Before they cross the door, ask them if they are aware that they're stealing the item they have concealed. A lot of them are smart enough to fess up and take the break they're being given.

reply to post by Evolutionsend

WalMart does not have identical rights to an individual. They are a commercial outlet, and are therefore governed by commerce laws. They do, however, have similar rights and responsibilities.

Let's try this example: I invite you into my house. While you are there, some other guests of mine are harassing you and taking things from you, say, food off your plate while you are trying to eat. I have a responsibility as owner of the property to make some attempt to protect you from this harassment. In this WalMart, the guy was acting reasonably by trying to buy a product that was offered for sale (as in the example you would have been acting reasonably in trying to eat food that was offered you). Other customers were out of control and were harassing him (as in the example other guests were taking food off your plate). WalMart has a bailment to reasonably take steps to protect their customers (guests) from such harassment on their property. They did not do so even though according to you there was constant immediately available security.

Sounds to me like this guy has an actionable case against not only the police, but also the store.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Evolutionsend

WalMart does not have identical rights to an individual. They are a commercial outlet, and are therefore governed by commerce laws. They do, however, have similar rights and responsibilities.

Let's try this example: I invite you into my house. While you are there, some other guests of mine are harassing you and taking things from you, say, food off your plate while you are trying to eat. I have a responsibility as owner of the property to make some attempt to protect you from this harassment. In this WalMart, the guy was acting reasonably by trying to buy a product that was offered for sale (as in the example you would have been acting reasonably in trying to eat food that was offered you). Other customers were out of control and were harassing him (as in the example other guests were taking food off your plate). WalMart has a bailment to reasonably take steps to protect their customers (guests) from such harassment on their property. They did not do so even though according to you there was constant immediately available security.

Sounds to me like this guy has an actionable case against not only the police, but also the store.

TheRedneck

If you are not a lawyer,you should be.That has to be one of the best twists I have ever heard.I want you to defend me if I am in trouble.Unfortunately,stuffing items down your pants in retail stores isnt allowed.He should have been tackled and thrown out of the store, via the bouncer one hand on a pant leg and one hand on a shirt throw.That is the classic throw out of an establishment.It works best when 2 people perform the throw and really get the patron airborn.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Hopefully he will. I would love to hear the complete "other side" of the story.

You can get all sides from local sources at this link.
www.topix.com...

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Can I ask how 'Black Friday' got that name?

Perhaps a religious pun on 'Good Friday'..or..

It's when retailers move out of the red ink and into the black.

Really though, just seeing what happens to folks that participate in this odd after Thanksgiving ritual, I'm thinking it ought to be called, "Black and Blue Friday."