More Mayhem & Death At Wal-Mart

reply to post by TheRandom1


LOL well I didnt mean I would feed your fam the plastic... I ment I would sell it to feed them, anyway... You slip up with one word... You guys really know how to break balls and that is what I love about you all.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Yea well like you said your Bit's are ready, and we all should press freedom of info, but making DVD's from bit torrent and selling them seems much easier the stealing them.

NOW, ethics and morality aside, why not just let the crook steal? Why lower your self by Killing him for it?

Mob mentality and social manipulation from the former is the culprit. Lets all say beg that we wont all be seen as murderous theifs. Which is what this story is all about!

reply to post by Jb0311NY


Well actually it's right there in your last paragraph from Wiki:

Detention, being different from an arrest in the fact that a detainee may not be transported without consent, is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.

The Wal-Mart employees were detaining the man, not arresting him. The man had committed theft. Fits all the criteria for a legal detention.

reply to post by Jb0311NY

NOW, ethics and morality aside, why not just let the crook steal?

OK, we'll just allow this person to steal. Hell, it's beneath our morals to stop him, right?

So tomorrow he comes back with his buddies, and they clean out the electronics department. That's fine, too.

As a matter of fact, why close the doors at all? Why have employees, other than re-stockers?

reply to post by jsobecky


Sure, but it's not a felony $400 worth of stuff.
I am a Liscensed NY State Security Officer, and I received my training from the Police.

I do see how since they sat on him till he died they didn't transport him....

I agree to disagree, and I will consult my lawyer monday sir, and maybe we can talk about it over a cold pint.

Your attentivness of my wiki cut&paste still didn't explain your opinion to me. And to me that's worth more than some law explanation.

What's this mean to you?

reply to post by Jb0311NY


$393 is not an indication of desperation, it is an indicator of greed. bread and other dire necessities wouldn't cost a tenth of that.

reply to post by Jb0311NY

We should'nt just let people steal, it gives them the idea that they can do anything they want without consequence, but we shouldn't kill a man either.

No amount of material goods is ever worth the life of a human being, sadly many people think otherwise, this man could have been detained in a manner that would not have ended in his death.

-Lahara

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Well sure your right. I know it was 2nd thats mainly why I posted my half-cheeked explanation.

My OP is that since it was what? 3 on 1? Well multiple minds could have used their awareness to resolve without using deadly force, since they didn't, and with 3x the grey matter it should knock it up a notch. JUST MY HALF CHEEKER!

I loved the UK and I made some life long brother's why playing in the sand box form Wiltshire, and London. I neither claim to be a Legal system expert, but I feel that I love all people and animals. That means I am able to entertain all Idea's, and I feel I speak from a well experienced mind. I thought The Iraqis were just amazing people, and if I ever go back they should toss me in prison, for I commited 2nd 1st.... well is there a name for what 3/7 Ico USMC did over there? I doubt it deserve's one.
Everyone deserves one time to act like a fool.

reply to post by kidney thief


Your right.

sad story. I wish we could feed the world and have left overs. What we do have that much food? Oh.... They don't care? Thats right. I am an Idealist I suppose. Just want to have a family, and feed some Beefy chested Blue Jay's peanuts.
Where does man go wrong?

It's an unbalanced world.

Originally posted by Dulcimer

So are you saying that everything in Wal-Mart is made in China or at least, most of it? That is simply not true.

It also has nothing to do with the topic.

Link to Article

Washington -- For me as a reporter, the most startling discovery of six months of reporting was how much our major mass retail chains call the shots in today's global economy, with a powerful impact on the decline of manufacturing in America and the rise of manufacturing in China and Asia.

"Wal-Mart is one of the key forces that propelled global outsourcing -- off-shoring of U.S. jobs -- precisely because it controls so much of the purchasing power of the U.S. economy," says Gary Gereffi, a Duke University professor who studies global supply chains.

"Wal-Mart," Gereffi continues, "has life-or-death decision over [almost] all the consumer goods industries that exist in the United States, because it is the number one supplier-retailer of most of our consumer goods -- not just clothes, shoes, toys, but home appliances, electronic products, sporting goods, bicycles, groceries, food."

The Americans, they say, have gone well beyond merely hunting for bargains already being produced in Asia. In fact, both academics and business executives report, American retailers have actively driven outsourcing -- teaching East Asians how to design and manufacture products for American consumers, creating their own house brands in league with Chinese and Asian producers, and then bluntly warning beleaguered U.S. manufacturers that they'd better move their American plants to China and Asia if they want to survive.
Case in point: Bill Nichol, CEO of Kentucky Derby Hosiery, a sock manufacturer that has supplied Wal-Mart for 40 years. He credits Wal-Mart with forcing his company to be more disciplined and efficient, but he adds: "Their message to us, surprisingly, is, 'There's a broad market out there. If you want to focus on the lowest-cost part of the market, it's obvious that you can't do that in the United States'." So half of Nichol's 1,500 U.S. employees will soon be out of work and he'll have to open plants in China and other low-cost countries to hang onto his Wal-Mart account.

My point being that when one thief kills another thief for stealing it is ironic to say the least. When Walmart steals they get rich. When a lowly customer steals $353 dollars he is murdered. That is on topic.

edit for spelling

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Leo Strauss]

reply to post by Jb0311NY

Originally posted by Jb0311NY
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Sure, but it's not a felony $400 worth of stuff.

It doesn't have to be a felony. Is that what you're arguing?

Your attentivness of my wiki cut&paste still didn't explain your opinion to me. And to me that's worth more than some law explanation.

Understand, I have no problem with your source. I guess I just don't understand your question to me.

Ah well, football's on. Talk to you later..

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Jb0311NY

 

Originally posted by Jb0311NY
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Sure, but it's not a felony $400 worth of stuff.

It doesn't have to be a felony. Is that what you're arguing?

Your attentivness of my wiki cut&paste still didn't explain your opinion to me. And to me that's worth more than some law explanation.

Understand, I have no problem with your source. I guess I just don't understand your question to me.

Ah well, football's on. Talk to you later..

Yes my friend, lemme talk to the book worms here in my Aunt's law office on Long Island and we can clarifiy the law.
The police told us are we BY NO MEANS TO DETAIN OR ARREST under this circumstance. WE CANNOT, mabye it's because I am liscensed, and we were told that it is false imprisonment to hold them in a "detaining" area.

Nice evade on my question btw concerning your opinion. Guess you just wanted to "argue" before kickoff. Glad I could help!!!
Have a great day!

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Jb0311NY]

Wal-Mart does not steal. It is shrewd business. The man that died stole property not just from Wal-Mart, but from its manufacturer.

Originally posted by Dulcimer
Wal-Mart does not steal. It is shrewd business. The man that died stole property not just from Wal-Mart, but from its manufacturer.

He should be charged for theft 2x then right? And if multiple theives were involved hit them with conspiracy.

I wish we could figure a way to make a job for everyman, one that not only fuels the fire of socitey, but one that full fill's them on every level.
No need to steal junk if we are happy inside, I think thats why he steals.

Lets talk about the ethic's of it. Why does someone steal other than to feed his family? Why is one compelled to clearly wrong another? Can we do this without going Dr. Phil?

Is there solution's to the problem's we describe?

Originally posted by iforget
I never have shopped at wallmart and never will. One can praise the strong capitalistic spirit that has spurred the growth of wallmart but with that spirit not tempered by appreciation for its employees and true compassion for its community wallmart has become some sort of modern day concrete pirate.

We have a giant Asda - Walmart here in my town (UK) and I vowed never to go there when it opened.

I have my own issues with global corporations, I think they are damaging to every society on Earth, simply because they are machines unto themselves with the sole purpose of creating massive profit.
There is no Humanity in this machine, and its thirst for more and more wealth is unlimited.

On this, I am not in the slightest bit surprised.
People's priorities are completely unbalanced and they'll think they're doing the right thing, but for who? The corporation?

What is the benefit in shopping at mom and pop stores anymore? The only ones I would consider would be farmers markets, or something along that line that sells local food and beverage.

If you shop at a mom and pop store you support a few workers, with the owners taking the place of big wig ceo's and upper management.

If you shop at a big box store you support quite a few workers and the big machine.

The simple fact is that most stores get the merchandise from the same place and in the end it only comes down to the profit they can spare in getting the lowest price.

Wal-mart can fill massive orders so it can keep prices low and get good profits.

If you were to shop at another store in this day and age just to feel good about it you are burning your money away.

Welcome to the machine.

The walmarts where I live still sell guns. Shoot they even had a couple of mini 14s last month.

If you shop at Walmart, that man and all the other shoplifters are stealing from YOU. Walmart may have low prices, but they'd be even lower if Walmart didn't have to cover losses from shoplifting. You're paying for everything that shoplifters steal every time you shop at any retail store, unless you find one that has zero losses. (Good luck with that.)

I do think that the shoplifter should be given the benefit of the doubt.
There is such a thing as the career shoplifter criminal and such a thing as a person just being stupid. Stupid does not deserve to die for his stupidity. No one can tell the difference by looking.

I find it interesting that this event ocurred in such a litigation-happy country as America.

Having worked for a number of retail companies in the UK, I can say from experience that one of the most firmly stressed points in dealing with shoplifters is NEVER to touch them - for the simple reason of avoiding possible later litigation for assault etc.

With that it mind it astounds me that the individual referred to in this news report was forcibly wrestled to the ground by a number of retail employees.

What also astounds me is the nature of some of the comments being made here. A number of people are speaking as if the shop staff set out to kill the man. "Was his life only worth $383?"and suchlike. Get real. Although their actions were extremely heavy-handed and questionable, I doubt very much any one of those people forcing him to the ground intended him to die. It was an unfortunate consequence.

And let us not forget, nobody forced the thief to go into the shop, steal, and take the risk of being physically apprehended. The moment he made the decision to enter that shop he knew the risk of being caught, the risk of being punished, the risk of being jailed. So at that point in time, HE thought his life WAS worth $393.

Reading the article from the link it says that there is no legal case here for the deceased family, this I find pretty odd. In any situation where somebody ends up dead due to the direct negligence of another person or persons, there is a charge of manslaughter to answer.

And for all those saying he got what he deserved, I'm dumbfounded. The guy firstly was a shoplifter he did not deserve to die, and I find it completely alien to me that any person can find satisfaction in him ending up dead.