Skip to main content

View Diary: Walmart Employees Kill Another Alleged Shoplifter (256 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  By not stopping, she was telling (7+ / 0-)

    the guard that if he wanted to get her he was going to have to physically stop her (which, when both people are running, almost always is going to result in a tackle). And she was engaged in the act of stealing as this was happening, so as an agent of the store he had every legal right to stop her from stealing. The only question to me is whether the tackle was excessive in how it was done. For that, you need multiple witnesses. And of course, people disagree on the definition of excessive. To me, the burden should be on the suspect to prove somehow that the tackle was excessive, given that she is the one that caused the melee in the first place. And that is the way the law works as well.

    •  And what if, by not stopping, she had been telling (11+ / 0-)

      the guard that she was deaf?

      Security guards are not officers of the law and are not legally allowed to use any significant amount of force. An attempt to grab someone by the wrist is generally allowed in most states.  Tackling, choking, and other injurious forms of excessive force are not allowed in any state.

      You are clearly trolling, but that isn't really a surprise, given your comment history.

      •  Last I checked I had 4 bars and over (7+ / 0-)

        40,000 comment ratings. But if you like to throw around the troll name when you don't like someone disagreeing with you, go ahead. I think it tells people more about you than about me.

      •  Not a troll. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kevskos, mrkvica

        Just a reactionary.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 10:06:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your comment would have been just fine without (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        llywrch, ColoTim

        that last sentence.

        Should consider retraction.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 07:25:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You'll need to cite that law (0+ / 0-)

        "any significant amount of force" is not a legal term of art.  Perhaps you can share your knowledge of the subject since you seem so certain of your position.

        •  Case law makes it very clear (0+ / 0-)

          That these incidents are not legal. There is a reason Walmart loses these lawsuits. The cost of losing false arrest, assault, etc. cases is part of the reason other retailers don't have the same policy.

          Try google. It's your friend.

          •  You're confusing issues (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, using excessive force is not legal.  And that is a legal and factual determination to be made by the court.  However, you made a different claim.  Shopkeepers have a right to detain shoplifters.  And citizens have a right to detain someone fleeing a crime.  Your lazy "try google" response shows the depth of your knowledge on this subject.  

            •  I'm not confusing issues (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper

              I was using descriptive plain language in a discussion forum on a web site, not arguing a court case.

              The point is that Walmart employees frequently use excessive force in their attempts to detain people (which is why they have such an alarming death rate), and in the beginning of this thread, the implication was that tackling a woman on pavement was an acceptable way to detain her, despite the risk of serious harm. It was not. If the woman took the store to court, the store would find out how much losing an assault case costs (hint: more than any volume of clothing she may have tucked into her coat).

              A store may attempt to detain someone using reasonable force. If, however, reasonable force doesn't work, they can't legally escalate the level of force beyond that point. Period.

    •  So, he could have shot her, I guess. (6+ / 0-)

      As long as it was only the foot.

      Or something.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 10:05:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, don't expect the union (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover, blueoasis, 3goldens, lgmcp

      ti defend you. Because you don't belong to one.

      "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

      by DJ Rix on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 11:14:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's the problem the way I see it. (8+ / 0-)

      By changing their department (even if only in name only, which I'm sure it's not) from Loss Prevention to Asset Protection, Walmart (and other retailers) has changed the job description.

      Retail security workers used to work to PREVENT loss. They were the eyes and ears of the company. They knew the sales associates and kept lines of communication open so associates also took ownership in preventing loss. Being a presence and being a deterrent was a big part of that.  Of course, there is always shrinkage (stuff disappears, and you don't know why. Could be shoplifting, employee theft or inventory/accounting errors). But the idea is that loss prevention means we keep all loss to a minimum

      Asset PROTECTION is far more active though. It's not just about being watchful and communicating with sales associates. Inventory is no longer just "inventory."

      Elevating it to "assets" that need active protection changes the whole ballgame.

      Why has this happened?  Well, sales associates used to be part of the team. Now employees aren't important assets. They're interchangeable,  easily disposable,  and are there to be exploited.  So they're not loyal to the employer like they used to be. I'm sure, also, there are fewer loss prevention/asset protection workers than there used to be, but they're expected to do even more.

      And retailers other than Walmart work on lower profit margin because they have to deal with the Walmart effect. Target has to keep its prices low to avoid losing customers to Walmart. Macys has to keep its prices low to avoid losing customers to Target. Nordstrom has to keep its prices low to avoid losing customers to Macys. Even Nieman Marcus is more price conscious than it ever was, lest it lose customers to Nordstrom.

      So they're squeezing pennies out of every pair of socks they sell. Every sock becomes an "asset" that has to be actively protected.  In addition, at the same time, corporations have been told by society that they are free to do whatever they want.

      With this sort of mindset, customers who pocket $50 of inventory in today's climate is literally risking his life.

      © grover

      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 01:19:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Burden (8+ / 0-)

      should always be on the person who uses physical force.  Prove to us that the use of force was justified or pay the consequences.  Stealing is only things, force can hurt, kill and maim people.  It also can not be taken back; most stolen goods can be recovered.

       We have given society many tools to recover stolen goods and punish the thieves, physical beatings are not the tools we need to use in these cases.  That goes for your wallet too Doc2.  Hope you don't get shot trying to save your drivers license and five bucks some day.

      Use of physical force to recover goods is morally bankrupt.

      •  "Guilty until proven innocent" = Bad idea. (0+ / 0-)

        All the time.  Everywhere.  For all alleged criminal activity.  

        "Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars" --Casey Kasem

        by netop on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 12:45:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Use of physical force to recover goods is morally (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


        That is a foolish, naive position.  Sure, it makes you feel morally superior, but it betrays a lack of understanding of the day to day lives of many US and global citizens.  Frankly, it's a pathetic, self-aggrandizing attitude.  Try thinking about the consequences of having your entire paycheck stolen from you by a mugger.  In your squinting eyes, chasing him/her down and physically trying to retrieve the money to be used to feed your children, money that will not be replaced otherwise, is morally bankrupt.  How dare you wag your bourgeois finger at people who live with so much less.  

    •  Honestly, if I had seen the incident above, my (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, Mike08, gecko, mrkvica

      first thought would have been that the guy was likely a spouse abuser beating up his wife or girlfriend, or that he was maybe a rapist trying to kidnap his victim. The thought that she may have been a shoplifter, and he was a security guard probably would not enter my mind.

      When the guy pursued the woman outside, he was placing himself at risk because many people out there would view such an incident the same way I would--and might even step in to help the woman.

      If he had injured her, she could have probably sued the store for much more than the merchandise was worth, plus she could have probably filed assault charges against him, since he was just a security guard, and not a police officer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site