It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More Mayhem & Death At Wal-Mart

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

The situation you describe where folks die while being sat on and such, including the young guy, you'll note one common denominator.

The SOB's were fighting them. They were trying everything to get away. If you get caught and don't want to fight, you'll note that folks will not feel it is necessary to get you to the ground and pile on.

You steal and get caught - own up and take your lumps.

You steal, get caught and want to fight - it's your ass. And whatever happens, is a direct result of your initial act of theft, and your secondary act of fighting.

You die, you die. Your fault.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by lmbbsc
 

Exactly what specific training do you need to run someone down and detain them? If they are cooperative, they all walk back inside together, and I've seen that. They don't want to cooperate and want to fight - then you don't have to be specifically trained to fight.

In hospitals when one goes ballistic, we bum-rush the guy, overwhelm him, hold his butt down, lay across him, whatever it takes, because we don't want to get bitten either, and we then put them in restraints.

There is a story of a nineteenth century newspaperman who had come out West, and was stunned to find that a man was fixing to be hung for horse theft.

"You would publicly hang a man for stealing a horse?"

"Nope. We're hanging this man so that horses are not stolen."



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I would think that if someone is going to involve themselves in such a situation, they would be able to properly assess the situation and the type of training I'm talking about is how to subdue someone without causing excessive harm to them or yourself. There is a difference between using force and excessive force. Just because someone is doing something you judge as being wrong does not mean that you can use whatever force you want to stop them. By that logic, if you see someone jaywalking, you can try to detain them and if they resist, you have every right to kill them. What kind of justice is that?

Also, no facts have been given about what led up to him struggling. Is it possible that he had mental issues or that they were not wearing anything to identify them as Wal-Mart employee's and thought that they were robbing him? It isn't enough in my oppinion to to just say "well he was struggling with them so he had it coming."

Look at the big picture instead of just tunneling in on the one point.

Fact 1. It is ASSUMED that he was stealing
Fact 2. Four people to detain one man. (not necessary if you have the PROPER TRAINING)
Fact 3. By Wal-Mart's own rules, the employee's shouldn't have laid one finger on him.

If you haven't noticed, we're not in the nineteenth century anymore. We are in the twenty-first century. Most of your states don't have the death penalty anymore.

If it is PROVEN that this man did steal and knew that they employee's and was struggling with them not out of fear for his safety but to try and get away with a crime, well then I would say that a great deal of the blame would lye on his shoulders BUT I still wouldn't condone what they did.

My opinion is that these characters were just out to show how tuff they are and were not stopping him to help WAL-MART but just so they can go to their friends latter and tell them a great story. Just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
A couple of years ago Safeway store employees detained a man in the parking lot of a Seattle Safeway store for stealing a pack of smokes. He died from the choke hold.

I think Safeway settled the suit with his family, but the employees were not criminally prosecuted because they did not intend to kill him.

After doing a quick search for the article I found another almost identical one where Safeway Security killed another man in Arizona using the exact same method.

Apparently Safeway security has a habit of choking fleeing shoplifters to death.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Who cares if people steal from corrupt corporations? Why should you care? Do you all really take this that seriously (stealing, that is... not the poor fellow who lost his life because some jerk thinks he benefits from stopping thieves)? What do you have to gain by being subservient to a corporation that only wants to convince you to give them money for sweatshop-made merchandise anyway? Yes, not all of the merchandise is sweatshop-made, I know. But most of us can agree that Wal-Mart is sickening.

It makes me sick to my stomach to see what ends people will go to justify this tragedy. "Oh, well he shouldn't have been stealing." That is complete sheep-like mentality. Stop being a tool for a corporation that only cares about your money. Why would you defend Wal-Mart? Do they defend you?
Shoplifting is such a small thing... why do you worry about it so much? There are bigger things in life to worry about, and those things have nothing to do with money or material goods.

1st or 2nd degree murder? I don't know, I was going to say Manslaughter, because to me it seems more like death due to negligence than anything else. The employees, who had no business trampling this guy to the ground in the first place, were too rough and didn't know their strength obviously. I doubt they pre-meditated this... I don't see why anyone could think that. Anyway... once again, they're just material goods. Who cares. Capitalism sucks, and you're all defending it. Let's move on to a better era. Let's evolve.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmbbsc
If it is PROVEN that this man did steal and knew that they employee's and was struggling with them not out of fear for his safety but to try and get away with a crime,



He could also have been struggling because he couldn't breathe.

People do tend to struggle and panic when their ability to breathe is at stake!

[edit on 12/8/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


They are not trained in restraining techniques. Regardless if the guy did actually steal anything or not, they should be up on manslaughter charges, if anything.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ATS4dummies
 
You have no empathy.

This guy tried to steal diapers (fun item)!

1) Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
2) Was he one of the tens of millions now laid off by the big companies that run America?
3) Killing someone in a parking lot over stealing is getting like the Middle East. Next you will condone cutting off a 9 year old boys hand for stealing a loaf of bread).

The people who should be brought up on stealing charges are the banks, the CEO's of the banks and large corporations who are robbing the rest of us blind and causing more people to steal because they have no job, no money and are at the end of their ropes.

There are unjustly two sets of rules. One for the "elite" (bankers, company heads) and one for the "common folk".

The major heads of our banks stole how much? and are being bailed out!

If there is to be no stealing I say that EVERYONE should abide by that rule.



[edit on 8-12-2008 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent


The people who should be brought up on stealing charges are the banks, the CEO's of the banks and large corporations who are robbing the rest of us blind

[edit on 8-12-2008 by ofhumandescent]



Please cite specific examples. I would be very interested in knowing this information.

It is simply not true.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


Oh I have *LOTS* of empathy.....

For victims of criminals. I hate criminals who care nothing for anyone but themselves. I also think people like you will change their mind very quickly when your home is burglarized. Talk to me then.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Are you serious? It's OK to steal from corporations because corporations are corrupt? I'm a corporation, jerk!

And no, we don't ALL agree that Wal-Mart is sickening.

Unless.

Unless you are a big union man or union agitator. Frustrated that the union hasn't gotten into Wal-Mart, frustrating your efforts to do for Wal-Mart what you did for GM and Ford.

Anyone who says four on one has never, ever been in a situation where one person is breaking the law, or not accepting being apprehended for doing so.

You must the Green Hornet? Maybe Jet Li?

Training? This isn't Blackwater or Triple Canopy! This is a retailer! They actually used good, practiced technique, which would indicate training.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Could be the shoplifter was a doper - been number of cases where
police/security try to restrain someone high on drugs. The suspect dies
of heart attack/heat stroke during struggle. In my area been problems
with crack heads who shoplift to feed habit. One cop I know responded
to call from store security - woman crack head caught shoplifting. When
tried to cuff her she stabbed him with needle had concealed - for next
2 years had to take tests for aids/hepatitis every few months. Another
cop friend working after hours security job at drug store caught a
crack head shoplifting - when approached her whipped out needle and
started screaming had aids. Pulled out his collapsible baton, flicked it open and broke her arm - she did 6 months in county for assualt.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
In my view it doesn't matter to me whether the guy was on drugs or totally lucid, poor or rich, crazy or not, or any number of factors which could add to the justification or lack thereof of his crime. This guy was merely a shoplifter, now he's dead, and one of these guys should be going down for manslaughter



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dulcimer

Originally posted by ofhumandescent


The people who should be brought up on stealing charges are the banks, the CEO's of the banks and large corporations who are robbing the rest of us blind

[edit on 8-12-2008 by ofhumandescent]



Please cite specific examples. I would be very interested in knowing this information.

It is simply not true.


He's talking about the 8.5 trillion dude.
How is that money no stolen?
The bankers ARE the NWO wake up brother!



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
The situation was compared to an intruder in someone's house. I believe that this is an entirely different issue and family safety is in question. No one knows the intent of an intruder and entry with the family at home is especially hazardous for all concerned.
In the case of Wal-Mart, suspected theft could be handled by the police and video camera armed security personnel. Nothing like a day in court after a week in jail.
Consider also that the individual may have been struggling to breathe as he was told to stop struggling. The good squad chases him and knocks him down. Then they all sit on him while saying "stop struggling." Have someone smother you for a bit and see what your reaction is.
To those who would impose the death penalty for petty theft -- where would you draw the line at punishment? Sharia only cuts off the hand of a first time thief. Death occurs only after the third conviction. Who really are the barbarians?

[edit on 12/8/2008 by pteridine]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I'm going to be responding to many posters here, but chose this one, as it's based on my analogy.

First off, you say that theft in Wal-Mart could be handled simply by sending the necessary footage and other evidence to the authorities.. How does this help catch the criminal? They have long ago ran off, and there's not much of a way to catch them. I've heard from a VERY reliable source inside of Wal-Mart that their cameras are not able to cover the entire floor-space of the store and parking lot. This means that there are "dead zones", and anything can happen there.

So, how does one catch a criminal once they've run off, and all that's left is the empty merchandise? Call the cops? The cops have a hard time reacting to a simple domestic violence case, and I'm not sure that I'd trust the cop's judgment more than the Wal-Mart employee's, as there are a number of well-documented cases, posted here on ATS, where police officers have abused their power.

 


Now, to the other members, I owe a bit of clarification. What I see happening here is a very bad situation made even worse by the man's death. There's two sides to every story, and I'm going to try to make a case for both... first the criminal, and then for Wal-Mart.

This man goes into the store, looking for some merchandise, and realizes that he doesn't have enough money... he puts some diapers on the bottom of his cart, and finds a few other items that he needs, and makes his way to the register to check out... He gets there, checks out, but forgets the diapers and a few of the other items in the cart. As he's making his way out of the building, the security personnel stop him, and ask him to step back inside. He tells them to go away, that he needs to get home, and continues on his way. They try to detain him, and he fights back. During the fight, he dies...

Now, a case for Wal-Mart..

The security personnel are called over to an area because someone sees a suspicious-looking character around the baby section. They move in, and watch as the man takes items off the shelves, actively conceals them, and makes his way to the register with the other items that he wants to purchase. He purchases the other items that he wants, and makes his way to the door, while the security personnel are watching him every step of the way, having noticed that he didn't pay for any of the concealed stuff... he gets to the door, and walks out, only to be stopped. At the moment he's stopped, he should realize that he's been busted, and should willingly go back inside. But instead, he fights back. Why fight back here?

 


Now, in the above scenarios, both the customer / thief and the security personnel could have done a few things differently. First, the thief.

He could have solved this whole problem by NOT stealing in the first place. To do so from anyone is just stupid, not to mention against the law. His second major mistake was fighting back when he was confronted by the security personnel. I'm sure they wouldn't have had to be as forceful with him as they were if he wasn't fighting back so hard.

To those saying that he was fighting back so hard because he was not able to breath; that doesn't explain why they were sitting on him in the first place!! Security personnel don't just pile on suspected thieves... that's counter-productive. Why waste more energy than is necessary?

Next, the Wal-Mart security personnel...

While following the suspect, they could have been on the phone with the police, to have them at the door when they got there, so that they could make the stop in the presence of the local PD, but they didn't. Another thing they could have done differently was to just hold the guy's limbs down without pressing on his back. I know a few things about keeping people detained, and what they did to him was not one of them. With three people, this shouldn't have been difficult. To me, this sounds like a rookie bunch. They should have been better trained.

 


Ok, in summation, I'd like to make a few passing comments about the views expressed in this thread.

This notion that security personnel are not allowed to detain people is ridiculous!! That's there JOB!!

It's the apparent lack of training here that needs to be addressed, not the job description. One member mentions a Wal-Mart policy about how they aren't allowed to touch people trying to leave? I thought I heard somewhere that that only applies to the regular employees?

I don't believe that security personnel fall into that category, as I'd imagine that they'd be in plain clothes, now wouldn't you?

Another thing that I'd like to clear up is that this man most likely WAS stealing from the store, as these security personnel wouldn't have gone to all of that trouble if they didn't see him try to take all of that merchandise out of the store.

There was one poster that asked me if I was equating stealing with taking someone's life, and I'd like to answer a firm NO to that one..

What I meant was that during the course of a robbery, sometimes things happen that are unforeseen. The thing that I think took this to a whole new level was the violence exhibited by both parties. The guy fighting to get away, and the security personnel holding him down.

Do I think that they should be punished for their actions? I'm not a judge, so I won't say. It's not my place.

Do I think that that man should have died? NO, but I'm not going to try to justify what he tried to do either, provided that he WAS trying to steal.

Oh, and one last thing: Equating this to a robbery in a home is just as relevant, as the person is there to steal something from the residence 9 times out of 10.

And I'd challenge anyone to NOT react violently if someone tried to pick your pocket, and you caught them in it "red-handed".

TheBorg


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Edited for clarity and spelling.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by TheBorg]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


Did I get this wrong or was he a thief? If a thief than he got his just deserts. Come on. You want justice here? If you get it you pay for it. You steal it, you deserve what you get.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBorg
 


Where do you get that they were security personnel? The original article and every other source I've been able to find just says they were "Walmart employees" or "Walmart workers." As someone else said, for all we know they were the guys who collect the carts from the parking lot.

Nowhere is there any indication that they were actual security personnel. And, if they weren't, as has been stated several times in this thread, they went AGAINST store policy by attempting to detain/restrain Mr. Donovan.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It's all well and good to hate on big corporate America, and Wally World is a prime candidate. But really, busting these guys chops for doing their job is silly.

Let's just look at who's at fault. Duh, the guy doing the stealing. If he didn't take the stuff, nothing else that followed would have happened.

If he had been pulling the lawnmower out of my garage, I might have hit him too hard in an effort to stop him. If he had been car jacking me, I might have shot him. If he had been stealing my cows, I might have hung him.


And the truth is, most of you would do the same. It's called protecting what you have. It's a pretty basic instinct.

But because we have the "Big Bad Company" doing it, too many people want to ignore who's original fault all this was and focus on the "poor thief". Bull hockey.He stole, and it wound up costing more than he bargained for. It would have been no different than the guy who tried to steal copper wire from a new home under construction and got fried like a moth in a bug zapper. (It happened a few miles from where I live.)

There hasn't been any evidence that these employees set out to kill the guy to teach him a lesson; he died because of unfortunate circumstances while in the commission of a crime.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. (And he drew the big one.)



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


That IS a good point, and one that merits further investigation. I was merely trying to make a case for both the store and the thief was all...

For the record though, it's common practice for a business to hire trained security personnel to protect the company's interests. In this case, they would be considered employees of the company that hired them. So, even though they're employees, they are trained to do what they do...

Now the question is, does Wal-Mart have such employees? To me, this would only be a reasonable assumption, as they have interests to protect, not the least of which is the merchandise in the store. Protecting the other employees and customers is paramount to any security detail, however, and it should be their main focus at all times.

This incident, in my mind, is nothing more than a tragic accident.

TheBorg

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join