Daily Kos

Wal-Mart kills man for allegedly shoplifting diapers

Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 11:04:21 PM PDT

I saw this posted earlier, but didn't see it get much traction due to the paucity of details. I hope this diary is more recommendable as now there are considerably more details on Stacy's murder by Wal-Mart security personnel. Keep in mind these Wal-Mart employees have no special legal standing different from you or me, even in Texas.

Mr. Driver, 30, was chased into the Wal-Mart parking lot, handcuffed and forced down to the hot pavement for allegedly shoplifting. He died in under 10 minutes once he was in the hands of the Wal-Mart employees.

First off, here is the original Houston Chronicle story.

Driver lived in Cleveland, where his parents own a small business, Lindeman said. Driver was a master carpenter with a 2-month-old son and was about halfway through taking flying courses to get his pilot's license, Lindeman said.

Employees told investigators Driver had walked out the store with a package of diapers, a pair of sunglasses, a BB gun and a package of BBs, Martin said.

Lindeman said otherwise. "It's our belief he was not shoplifting," he said.

More details under the fold.

Mr. Driver pleaded for his life to deaf ears.


"About 30 people were saying, 'Let him up, it's too hot,' " Portz said. He said another employee brought a rug for Driver to lie on, but one of those holding Driver said he was fine where he was. "After about five minutes, (Driver) said, 'I'm dying, I can't breathe, call an ambulance,' " Portz said.

Employees struggled with Driver before he was handcuffed, Martin said.

"There was a struggle, and when they finally succeeded after getting him detained in handcuffs, he continued to struggle," Martin said.

After Driver was handcuffed, Portz said one employee had his knee on the man's neck and others were putting pressure on his back.

"Finally the guy stopped moving" and the employees got off him, Portz said. "They wouldn't call an ambulance."

"I looked at him and said, 'Hey, he's not breathing,' but one guy told me (Driver) was just on drugs. I told them his fingernails were all gray, and finally they called an ambulance."

Wal-Mart is unusual in its tactics of chasing alleged shoplifters.


"Most retailers have a policy of not going into a chase or getting into a combative fight with someone," said Joseph LaRocca, vice president of loss prevention for the National Retail Federation.

...

"Most retailers' policies would say that if a person becomes combative, let them go," LaRocca added. "You can tell police, and let the police handle the investigation and follow up."

Walmart is also refusing to discuss their procedures.


Wal-Mart's corporate office has refused to discuss its procedures for detaining and using force against shoplifting suspects in wake of the death of Stacy Clay Driver, 30, on Sunday.

...

Christi Gallagher, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, declined repeated requests to discuss the retail chain's techniques for apprehending and detaining suspected shoplifters or whether it permits use of force against suspects. "We don't speak publicly about our security measures," she said.

Refused. No apologies, no pledge to change their agressive loss-prevention policies or even a statement their employees went too far. Nobody has been fired.

Wal-Mart apparently has a history of aggressively going after shoplifters.


The company, however, is widely known for its aggressive prosecution of shoplifters, said Sgt. Jeff Stauber of the Sheriff's Department burglary and theft division.

Its aggressiveness also has led to a number of civil lawsuits for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution

Wal-Mart loses millions (perhaps billions) to shoplifting. It's clear where their priorities are. But even then, they are wrong. Costco, who pays their employees well, has reportedly a lower theft rate than Wal-Mart.

Don't let this story go away--recommend this diary. Wal-mart is hoping this story will just disappear. Don't let it happen.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 221 comments

  •  911 changed everything. especially ethics. (4.00 / 3)

    James Webb is a bigot. And an uber hawk. Stephanie Herseth is a bigot. Harold Ford, Jr. is a bigot. And so are those who support them.

    by NorCalJim on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 11:05:52 PM PDT

    •  You can hear the Ringwingnuttery already (4.00 / 10)

      Well, if he was shoplifting, he was taking his chances

      Yeah, just like the brazilian was taking his chances for running in the tube in london while being non-white.

      Ahhh, you can just hear the days of "driving while black" coming back, can't You!?

      when will this fucking country wake up!?

      oh yeah, and thanx auh20 for the heads up on this.

      •  DWB (4.00 / 2)

        Ahhh, you can just hear the days of "driving while black" coming back, can't You!?

        I don't know where you live, but DWB (driving while black) has never gone away round here in Philly.  And things in town are positively wonderful compared to the posh suburbs of the Main Line.

    •  Perhaps if they had called 911... (4.00 / 4)

      things would be different. The corporation sets policy and should dig into their pockets to make things right. But the real culprits arethe thugs at the scene. They should be arrested and face murder charges.
      •  But... (4.00 / 6)

        what the hell were all the people doing just watching?  Step in and kick some ass.  I don't care if he was a criminal, that was obviously brutality.  Where is civil awareness in this day and age?  I would have poppped those fuckers right in the jaw.

        When they kick at your front door, How you gonna come? With your hands on your head - Or on the trigger of your gun : The Guns of Brixton

        by nonoose on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:00:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (4.00 / 6)

          Even if bystanders were afraid to get involved in the struggle, doesn't it seem odd that no one had a cell phone? They begged the Wal-Mart employees to call 911, but no one there had a phone handy to just do it themselves?

          The country we carry in our hearts is waiting. -- Bruce Springsteen

          by saucy monkey on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:38:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (4.00 / 3)

          I keep a shotgun in my trunk (I am, after all, a Texan). If I had seen this, I would have fetched it, called 911, and then held those Thug-Mart security guards until the police arrived to arrest them.

          If they had tried anything, there would have been some dead security guards. Watching a gang wearing gang colors beat someone to death is against my personal moral code.

          - Its time we stopped dealing in words, and started Dealing in Lead.

          by walkingshark on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:27:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This was my thought (none / 0)

            If I had a gun would I have pulled it on the guards? I don't know, but if I did I would fully expect to be arrested.  At the same time, there is a risk in this scenario of someone who doesn't know what is going on seeing you or I with a gun trained on security guards and, in turn, getting their own gun out and training it on you or I. Can we expect that this second person would not shoot first and ask questions later?

            Since I don't carry a gun or a cell phone, I hope I would have convinced at least one other bystander near me to join me in pulling the goons off the poor bastard.  I would think that it goes without saying that it is only stuff, that no one deserves to die over consumer goods, but obvioulsy I guess it doesn't in America the Brutal.  

            ePluribus Media - Truth be told.

            by Stoy on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 06:03:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  If the facts are what are presented here (none / 1)

        Then I think you can be sure there will some hefty charges brought.

        its hard to drink all day unless you start in the morning

        by The Exalted on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:36:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The New American Morality (4.00 / 5)

      Profit before life and guilty until proven innocent.  9/11 did not change everything, but BushCo, Rethugs and the Whore media have.

      It's great to be a Republican these days - nobody expects you to be smart, competent or honest.

      by yellowdog52 on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:15:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It definitely changed Customer Service (none / 1)

      Remember when the customer was always right and a company would apologize immediately for a scandal like this ?

      The 90's were the age of Total Customer Satisfaction. The 00's will be the age of Zero Customer Satisfaction...

      The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

      by lawnorder on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:36:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I shoplifted from Walmart (3.00 / 3)

      sevreal times when I was a teenager, now I especially don't feel bad about it!

      "The truth may be puzzling. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." -Carl Sagan

      by astronautagogo on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:29:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  1 ratings.... (none / 0)

        Are for trolls, XOVER...not progressives.

        "The truth may be puzzling. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." -Carl Sagan

        by astronautagogo on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 02:07:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  XOVER (none / 0)

          on second thought, I think your a real jerkoff for troll rating me for shoplifting when I was a kiddo from f*cking WALMART! Glad to see your priorites are in order.....

          "The truth may be puzzling. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." -Carl Sagan

          by astronautagogo on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 02:09:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Tip jar (4.00 / 75)

    It's my first diary too!
    •  Is your username (none / 0)

      nerd-speak for Goldwater by chance?  If so, I hereby question your motives!

      Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

      by Cream Puff on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:18:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey (4.00 / 3)

        Goldwater Republicans can be horrified at this kind of corporate abuse of power just as much as any liberal.  I ought to know, my parents were Goldwater Republicans, even had the AuH2O bumper sticker on the car; today neither of them is a Republican, because today's GOP is about shit just like this.
      •  Goldwater Republicans (4.00 / 2)

        Are now officially America-hating liberals and "fair game" for character assassination by modern Republicans.  

        Goldwater himself spent his last days defending Bill Clinton and being flogged for it by the Nuts who said "NEWT"!

        The insinuation that the feces of John McCain, a former prisoner of war, would stink, is outrageous!

        by AdmiralNaismith on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:42:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  i can't give you mojo for this (4.00 / 4)

      no offense.  i really appreciate you bringing attention to this.  definitely important story.  thank you.

      however, i can't give mojo when a man died.  hope you understand.  

      i'd like to ask a question (& I posted this on Texas KOS - if we can do anything, let me know)

      If I was to chase a man down, handcuff him, hold him down face first into the pavement, put a knee on his neck, not allow him to get up (despite his screams), hold him down even when he stops reathing (yes, they continued to pin a dead man) - If I was to do this, WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD'VE HAPPENED TO ME??

      I would have been pulled off him, held myself till police arrived (beaten probably in the meantime) & then charged by the police.

      HOW DOES PUTTING ON SOME OFFICIAL LOOKING FAKE POLICE UNIFORMS CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS???

      I am not saying disrespect authority. On the contrary. These Walmart employees, ie., ORDINARY CITIZENS had NO authority to pin this man in the pavement.

      I would've been fine with them holding him for the police (although I think it's stupid & dangerous corporate policy). But to keep him pinned down???

      Insane.  Libel.  Incredibly stupid Cooporate policy.  AND CRIMINAL IMHO.

      •  Repeating it doesn't make it true (2.00 / 2)

        Everyone in this thread seems to be repeating the same refrain: that the security guards had no legal authority to pin the man to the pavement.  That's just not true; they did have the authority.

        Citizen's arrests date back to the English common law, and are legal in every state of the union when a felony has been witnessed.  That includes the right to restrain an individual.

        A citizen performing a citizen's arrest does not have any of the special privileges of a deputized citizen.  If you arrest someone without cause, you can be found criminally liable for false imprisonment, kidnapping, or other crimes.  But if it can be shown that this man did shoplift from Walmart, the security guards were within their rights -- as common citizens.

        I recall a similar case a few months ago.  An intoxicated man crashed his car into a a parked car, injuring a passing pedestrian.  A Marine was nearby, saw that the man was intoxicated, and held him against the street pavement in much the same way -- with his knee on his back -- and waited for the police to arrive.

        People aren't such fragile creatures that they routinely die when forced to lie on hot pavement with a knee on their back.  This isn't a particularly nice way to treat others, but not many among us would expect death as the natural result of such treatment.

        In the end, I can't conjur up much sympathy for this man.  He entered Walmart's property, he stole their property, and when confronted he resisted arrest.  He wasn't beaten.  He was just forcefully held in the hot sun.  He obviously didn't deserve to die for stealing diapers and a BB gun, but death doesn't seem to be a likely result of holding someone face down on hot pavement for 10 minutes.

        No, I'm not a FReeper. Thanks.

        by JamesInPDX on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 06:36:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You all ready tried him? (none / 1)

          I thought it was "innocent, til proven guilty."  Not anymore, huh?

          Nonetheless, the man was restrained, and under control (the man they BELIEVE shoplifted - even today, they don't seem certain, though you are).  Once he was under control, he no longer had to be ...

          murdered fits nicely here.

          "2009" The end of an error

          by sheddhead on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:13:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You do understand... (none / 1)

          ...that hot pavement in Portland, OR isn't necessarily quite the same thing as in Texas.  It's bloody hot here, and that does make a difference.

          In any event, this guy was believed to be shoplifting, which ain't the same thing as actually being guilty.  I think we've all been through the experience of having that shoplifting detection machine go "beep" as we exit a store because of a technical goof up -- when all we're guilty of is taking out paid for merchandise.  These things aren't foolproof.

          I'd like to believe that if someone goofs up and mistakenly believes I'm shoplifting, I won't find my face held against the pavement on a 100 degree day while I'm pleading to at least be allowed to sit up.  I'd also like to believe that we still have the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, as well.  Finally, I'd like to believe that your heart isn't as hard as it seems in the above post.

          Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

          by TexasTom on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:13:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You're a wonderful person! (4.00 / 2)

          Your entire comment just boggles the mind.  Let's try to remember that this man didn't deserve to die on the hot pavement of a Wal-mart parking lot, no matter what he did.  I think the death penalty may be a bit severe, whether he was shoplifting or not.

          Now, I don't believe for a minute that the employees intended to kill him.  But from everything we know, he told them repeatedly that he couldn't breathe, and the witnesses say that the employees refused to call an ambulance.  Even one of the other employees tried to get e rug under the man, so this person also saw something wasn't right with this whole situation.

          You say can't work up much sympathy for him, but he didn't deserve to die.  Which is it?

          Also, the people who held him weren't just acting as citizens, they were also employees, which means the company is likely to be liable for anything that goes wrong (at least in civil court).  Additionally, those citizens are also responsible for the consequences of their "citizens arrest".

          "The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Finley Peter Dunne

          by Jack109 on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:51:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Fragile creatures (4.00 / 2)

          You say:
          "People aren't such fragile creatures that they routinely die when forced to lie on hot pavement with a knee on their back."

          Maybe not routinely, but not so rarely that a properly trained security guard would not be aware of the possible consequences.

          From an article in the Houston Chronicle Experts discourage using force in shoplifting cases

          The International Association of Professional Security Consultants recommends that retail security personnel do not strike, tackle, sit on a suspect, or engage in any contact that might cause physical injury.
          ...
          "No merchandise is of such value as to justify physical injury to a suspect," the association states in its "Best Practices" section of its Web site.
          Witherspoon always informs his clients that struggling with combative suspects can lead to death by "positional asphyxiation."

          "This can happen when someone is on top of a suspect who's face-down with hands handcuffed behind their back," he said. "This prevents them from breathing, and they suffocate."

          For the past decade, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has warned against the dangers of positional asphyxia, and many police departments have re-evaluated use-of-force procedures because some suspects have died in struggles.

          •  Properly trained? (none / 1)

            "People aren't such fragile creatures that they routinely die when forced to lie on hot pavement with a knee on their back."

            Maybe not routinely, but not so rarely that a properly trained security guard would not be aware of the possible consequences.

            Properly trained?  These people work for Wal-Mart.  Why would you think they'd be properly trained?

        •  I don't know (none / 0)

          Texas law, but somehow I doubt that shoplifting $20 in goods constitutes a "felony."

          Quite apart from that, it's definitely not a capital crime. In any state this side of medieval France.

          No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. -- Voltaire

          by Hastur on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:08:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  you are right & wrong (none / 0)

          citizen's arrest does exist.  no one (or at least) i am not arguing that.

          like i said, i would've been fine if they held him.  that's not the issue here.  nor is the shoplifting an issue.  would it have been ok to kill a man if he was a shoplifter?

          it's the deadly use of force that's an issue.

          THE MAN WAS PINNED DOWN ON HIS FACE ON THE HOT TEXAS PAVEMENT WITH MEN SITTIN ON HIS CHEST

          i live here in Houston.  i can tell you that you would not like to be held down by the neck on your face & chest by 5 men.

          it was a deadly use of force.  it was 96 degrees in the air.  add 10 degrees for humidity.  and about 20-50 degrees depending on the time, exposure to sunlight, color of the pavement (usually black).

          the surface was probably 130 degrees at a minimum when the held that man's face on it, with a knee on his neck, and a men on his chest.

          citizen's arrest does exist.  CITIZEN MANSLAUGHTER DOES NOT!!!

          my god man.  you feel nothing for this man?  for his family??  for his 2 month old son?  

          if you can't feel for the misfortune of another person, then you've got nothing.

          you may want ot consider what you have, man.

          i've never read a more saddening & poor comment on this site.

  •  death (3.00 / 3)

    Those security guards might have a serious problem;    check out http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/01/new_orleans_tri.php
    •  If this isn't a wrongful death case (none / 1)

      then nothing is.

        "I know Hawaii is a state."
        -- Cokie Roberts, 2008

      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.

      by admiralh on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 11:26:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dagnabit, Brian... (none / 1)

      Why didn't you warn us that American Renaissance was a site for whiny-ass white boys who are sick and tired of these insidious attempts to put them on equal footing with everyone else in the country?

      I need a shower after reading the comments.

      More accurately "A Texan in Bavaria," but would YOU give up UID 422?

      by A Texan in Maryland on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:52:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can't believe (4.00 / 5)

      they won't face legal problems.  Especially since the man who died said he couldn't breathe as well as witnesses.  In the original story, they're not certain he shoplifted?  I hope someone sent this story to NPR since Wal-Mart is doing all this advertising on there to prove how nice they are.

      Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 05:20:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Walmart sponsors ME in my area (none / 0)

        I just laugh when their spot comes on.  "Look! We're respectable, we support public radio!".  Who do they think they are fooling?  They should advertise on O'Reilly and Rush.

        Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

        by Fabian on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 06:31:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  public radio has been commercial (none / 1)

          since the very first "brought to you by..." somewhere around 1984.

          "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

          by nhwriter on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:21:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  you are assuming (4.00 / 7)

        that Wal-mart cares about such things

        They have  a long history of both losing lawsuits and using abusive and illegal tactics to try to avoid paying when they are in the wrong (hiding evidence, altering evidence, refusing to turn over documents, even with a court order etc)

        they not only hold the record for highest discovery sanction ever leveled by a judge (18 million) but they have been sanctioned nearly ten times as often as the next company down on the fortune 500.  Refusing to play by the rules of Civil procedure is   clearly corporate policy as they consider themselves  above the law

        Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

        by Magorn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:45:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What's a discovery sanction? (none / 0)

          I never went to law school.

          Seek first and final principles at The Mean Free Path.

          by Cream Puff on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:20:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (none / 0)

            It means Wal-Mart failed to comply with an order of the court, most likely, they refused to properly comply with a document request.

            its hard to drink all day unless you start in the morning

            by The Exalted on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:38:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Discovery (none / 0)

            In a civil (and to a limited extent criminal case) lawsuit, both parties have a right to request production documents and information about the case that in posession of the other side or third parties(and infact in the federal system you  have a duty to give them stuff they don't even ask for which you know is relevant).

            This is because, despite the what TV would have you believe, there are not supposed to be suprises in the Courtroom during trial.  

            Now Wal-mart despises this rule, and they routinely hide any incriminating evidence in their possession   (for example they hid warehouse saftey records in a  wrongful death action, video from security cameras  in a case where a woman was attack in a parking lot, and even payroll records in the Pharmacists' class action suit against them).   This behavior is so bad  that they   have fired several Law firms (highly unusual in the Fortune 500  world to change firms once, let alone several time a year)  for obeying the rules (lawyers can be personally sanctioned or found in contempt for violating discovery rules too.)

            Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

            by Magorn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:19:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ya but ... (none / 0)

          if the coroner comes back with "homicide" as the cause of death they are going to be in a world of hurt. That's a criminal matter, not just a civil matter. This incident happened last Sunday. Any word on what the coroner has ruled? Probably the coroner is waiting for toxicology results, but it has been almost a week.
          •  No then (none / 0)

            its merely " a few bad apples' who got overzealous in their security duties, and then Wal-mart will Find/Forge a written policy document  that tell the gaurds not to do hat they did, and the guards will find themselves criminally prosecuted, and on their own.  Wal-mart will then use every dirty trick in the book to fight the ensuing lawsuit.

            not that I'm cynical

            Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

            by Magorn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:23:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Wal-Mart Corrupts Absolutely (none / 1)

          They have the same mindset as George Bush.  Both are going to do what they want because it is RIGHT! Whey wield authority like only dictators do. Why is this not clear to half the nation?  Media still talks within the framework of 'democracy.' We lost most of democracy long ago--most people never speak up.  Even less so when jobs are scarce and 'we are at war'.  Poverty and Censorship win every time. As Tom DeLay said "we have the absolute truth."  

          This is a great case but who will bring it.  Who will force the justice system in Texas to make this a criminal case, and even if that happens, the security will pay, not Wal-Mart.

          It could be a different outcome if a powerful lawyer, or organization, took on the case for the deceased.  This could be a way to break Wal-Mart.

          There's a baby obviously, but whose the family if any?  The man was from Cleveland.  Are relatives there?

          There is a group working against Wal-Mart which I saw on C-Span Book TV, and the head of the group has written a book about Wal-Mart which I'm going to find.  They'll probably take this up.

          Please keep us advised.

    •  OH man! You tricked us! (none / 0)

      Talk about a bait and switch!

      What's up with that site?  The comments were remarkable in their consistant clarity. Frightening as they were.

    •  How about a warning next time (none / 0)

      for the ugly, racist comments at the end of the article you link to.  Excuse me while I go throw up.
  •  2 month-old Orphan (4.00 / 2)


    But, hey. Wal-Mart Security got to kill someone who fit the profile, so it's cool.

    pause

    Snark, people. Snark.

  •  I have never shopped at a Wal-Mart (4.00 / 9)

    and I am certianly no shoplifter, but after hearing this story, I don't think I will ever go within a mile of a Wal-Mart so long as I live.

    You can't be on the team, if you're not in the choir. Sorry.

    by peeder on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 11:50:38 PM PDT

    •  Same here. (4.00 / 2)

      Never would.  Boycott the mofos.  Buy blue exclusively.

      "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." -- Karl Popper

      by eyeswideopen on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 11:54:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Boycott! (4.00 / 2)

      Now is the time to boycott Wal-Mart until they are ethical and understand that employees and customers are people, not slaves.

      A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

      by Tux on Fri Aug 12, 2005 at 11:56:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you really expect ethics from the chain that sets (none / 1)

        out to destroy all mom and pop businesses in an area?  their agressive policies to take ALL business in an area (now including grocery items) is predatory in the highest degree.

        i am not surprised they would slaughter someone who was perceived as a threat to their corporate bottom line.

        they have no compunction in slaughtering the towns they move into - financially and jobwise.

        i've stopped shopping walmart now for about 7 months - after this article, i've just made that permanent.

        exploitive and predatory - that is walmart - and we don't need to pay MORE exploitive and predatory entities in this country - our politicians should suffice in that category!

        •  They can change ethics (4.00 / 1)

          When they change leaders. If it's between going out of business or running an ethical company, they'll get new leaders to stay in business.

          A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

          by Tux on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:03:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i would prefer them going out of business.. (none / 1)

            in the long run, they hurt those they seek as customers the most by removing choice an artifically setting prices that undercut the market.

            i'd rather scrimp and pay a bit more by choosing where i spend my hard earned coin (not making dollars much any more) than support those who are killing the economy!

            shop independent - and tell that shop that you are making choices to keep them in business.

            the best sign i saw in ages was in a little (true)coffee shop (with tables and atmosphere):  on the tip jar it said "friends don't let friends shop at starbucks!"  so true!

            it's all about  choices - what we value - and, yes, ethics!

      •  Slogan (none / 0)

        "Shop at Wal-Mart and they might kill you"
    •  me too, don't shop at WalMart, (none / 1)

      definitely won't now.

      If anyone needed a reason not to shop there, now you've got one.  

      Boycott the SOBs!!!

    •  Me neither... (none / 1)

      and my Costco-shopping dad is always fighting off his stockbroker's attempts to get him to invest in WalMart.  I just forwarded this article to him, for more ammo.

      "Civility costs nothing and buys everything." - Mary Wortley Montagu

      by sarac on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:03:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Raising Arizona. (4.00 / 12)

    Can't help but think of my favorite White Trash Epic upon this awful news.  

    That person's family is about to make some lawyer's life.  Wal-Mart is about to get a lesson in "When Keeping it Real Goes Horribly Wrong".  If the diarist is correct regarding Wal-Mart's policy, this may even be an opportunity for corporate criminal liability...

    My condolences to the family.

    •  RICO? (4.00 / 3)

      If the policy is corporation-wide, and the policy is illegal, and many WalMart executives were/are involved in forming/enforcing that policy then is it possible there's a criminal conspiracy here which could be prosecuted under the RICO statutes?

      If so, it could could cripple Walmart.

      ....Listen to Ded Prez....

      by Manix on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:43:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Abu Ghraib (4.00 / 5)

    That's all I can think of.
    •  After all, Geneva Convention (none / 0)

      is so "quaint."  Why should it apply WITHIN our own country, for our own citizens?

      "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS." - Gandhi

      by hopesprings on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 04:11:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Innocent Until Proven Guilty (4.00 / 4)

        becomes "Killed Until Proven ... oops."

        Kinda like the salem witch trials - kill her to prove she can die, then we'll know she's not a witch. Unfortunately, at least after death the so-called witches were exhonorated.  I can only imagine wingers will spin this guy as some degenerate who deserved his fate, even if he didn't steal the diapers (in addition to acting as if diaper theft is a capital offense).

        Hmmm..... Wasn't there another carpenter, a long time ago, whose death galvanized a movement against greed, hatred, and killing?  Bearded guy with long hair and flowing robes...  

  •  Ah, Walmart (4.00 / 5)

    Bastion of corporate integrity.  

    This is what happens when you pay people slave wages, and put small numbers of them in slight positions of power.  It's the equivalent of the poor yeomen who were hired by plantation owners to beat fear into slaves (who the yeomen, ironically, held more in common with than they did with the plantation owners).

    And we say history doesn't repeat itself.

  •  Were the employees security guards or (4.00 / 21)

    were they regular employees; cashiers, stock clerks, merchandisers? It does make a difference.

    I've worked in retail management for over 15 years and while regular employees receive training loss prevention techniques, security personal are supposedly experienced, trained professionals. Loss prevention detectives for example are schooled in the laws of their store's respective state and know the parameters of whatever actions they can and cannot take to deter and apprehend suspected shoplifters.

    I can tell you that everywhere I've worked, employees were trained in spotting shoplifters, and in the proper procedures to employ in such instances.

    To deter a shoplifter an employee could approach the suspect and offer customer service. "May I help you? Are you looking for anything in particular today? etc." This is done to identify oneself as an employee who is paying attention to whatever the "customer" is doing.

    An employee should never accost a suspect and accuse him of shoplifting; it's simply too dangerous. And while the suspect is still in the store, it is prohibited, as the suspect is still a customer until he has exited the store with unpaid merchandise.

    An employee must keep in visual contact with the suspect at all times until the suspect has exited the store, as the suspect may put back or dump the merchandise before exiting.

    An employee should contact a member of management or loss prevention immediately. At one company I worked for there was an practice by which an employee would pick up one of the floor phones and announce a  code via the paging system which
    all employees were instructed to respond to by leaving their post to go the the disignated dept. or assigned exits. (There were codes in place for the announcement of missing children as well expect such a code also resulted in immediate lock-down and a rush to the pull the gate and lock the exit doors.)

    No one was ever to be accused of shoplifting unless an employee could be certain that he had witnessed the entire event from theft to exit without losing visual contact anywhere along the way.

    If the suspect suscessfully exited the store the manager--and only the manager was authorized to inform mall security or the police.

    If the suspect was later apprehended, most times simply recovering the merchandise was satisfactory to corporate headquarters. Rarely would shoplifters ever be prosecuted. They would have to be part of a known gang of shoplifters or people with prior arrests for the company to press charges. Most times it is written up as a loss.

    It happens all the time, but rarely have I ever heard of employees actually accosting anyone. It's simply not standard policy at any large retailer. Like I said, it's left to security personnel, and in absence of trained security, it's left to mall authorities or the police.

    And NEVER was it permissable for an employee to touch a suspected shoplifter.

    •  Thanks, I was looking for this. (4.00 / 3)

      I couldn't remember formal policy statements just some basics "Hands off", "Contact manager", "Do not attempt to detain", "Stay in the store".

      The incident speaks of mob mentality and truly poor supervision.  At the least the manager in charge should have taken control of the situation immediately.  

      Deaths while being restrained, especially facedown, have been in the news this past year.  The racist one in New Orleans is the most recent one I can recall.  And the victim was not accused of any crime!  So I should hope that some portion of the population would be aware that restraining someone face down can lead to asphyxiation and cardiac arrest. You can KILL someone doing that!

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:46:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  also being tasered to death is popular n/t (none / 0)

        "If I dip my finger in purple ink, does that mean the Republican Secretary of State will count my vote?"

        by steppenwulf on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:52:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There was an added danger (none / 0)

        that it was a hot day and the man was held on asphalt.  I'm not sure how hot asphalt gets, but it's much hotter than the outside temperature, for sure.

        I have to say I'd be really surprised if it was Wal-Mart's policy to tackle and detain people in this way.  That's just not the norm, and it would be very dangerous for the employees (and the target, too) to do this.

        This man lost his life for around $20 of merchandise.  What a waste.

        Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

        by Unstable Isotope on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 05:26:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Texas asphalt (4.00 / 2)

          it was a hot day and the man was held on asphalt.  I'm not sure how hot asphalt gets, but it's much hotter than the outside temperature, for sure.

          As a Houstonian I can tell you with authority that, on a 96 degree summer day (and 96 isn't particularly hot down here in August) asphalt is hot enough to give you first degree burns if you're lying down on it.

          You've heard the term "hot enough to fry an egg on the sidwalk"?  A south Texas parking lot in August is that hot.

          i am jack's complete lack of surprise -- fight club

          by bustacap on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:30:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Death Penalty Time (4.00 / 2)

    What would happen if I did this to someone in Texas?  The death penalty.  Why should Wal*Mart be more privileged than me?
  •  I feel bad for my friend (4.00 / 12)

    She's a single mother living in Tooele, Utah. Since Walmart came to town, she's had to work there because they drove the place she used to work at out of business. WalMart is now the only game in town and they know it. She's had problems with the health plan, problems with harassment, you name it. She doesn't speak up because she can't risk her job, not with medical problems and a kid to feed.

    I see this, and it hsames me that this is what our country has come to. It's one thing to talk about the evils of Walmart and big corporations, it's another thing entirely to see it in action. She gets paid barely enough to keep her head above water, and not nearly enough to look for other options, to move, to get her own car, to commute to Salt Lake, to get an education, none of that.

    And it's Walmart's fault.

    OEF/OIF vet
    I've been called a left-wing extremist because I absolutely oppose torture. I can live with that.

    by jabbausaf on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 12:17:38 AM PDT

    •  No, it's our fault for shopping at WalMart (3.85 / 7)

      We 'mericans who shop at WalMart are what keep them in business.
      •  It's not that simple (4.00 / 5)

        Many people simply have no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart. Many times its the low prices--people have to make ends meet. Other times it's because Wal-Mart is the only game in town (by driving off other businesses like the original poster said).
        •  I live in a fairly large town (none / 0)

          so I'm not committed to shopping at Walmart. But I've called them evil enough times to get at least a couple of people to stop shopping there. I hate them with a passion. And after this, I will never step foot in there again.
          •  Choice (none / 0)

            My parents live in a small town, 12,000 people, in the middle of nowhere.  Walmart is it if you want anything.  Any small business competition is long gone.  There is no choice.
            •  Distance and consumption levels are choices (none / 0)

              Buying less is an option. When WalMart is the only choice, thinking hard about want vs need is critically important.  

              When Walmart is the only one in the area with something we want, we continue to want.  When Walmart is the only one in the area with something we need, we try to find someone NOT in the area who has it, and wait until we can get there, if at all possible.

              As a result, the only time we've ever shopped at WalMart is when our daughter was developing a severe allergic reaction and we HAD to get her some benedryl, before it reached emergency-room severity.

              I realize that a long drive or a long wait may not be possible for your parents, but for anyone reading this who does have that option, please consider it.

              Waiting a a few weeks before you buy something that is not a NEED generally won't hurt (sometimes, you'll even stop wanting it, then you've saved yourself a trip AND money).

            •  But there is "no choice" now, because (none / 1)

              we chose before to let Wal-Mart drive the other stores out of business.

              If we, as a nation, had refused to let ourselves be seduced by the promise of cheaper junk, the glittering lure, spinner and stinkbait hiding the hook - if we had refused to rush blindly into the lobstertrap of More Stuff/Lower Prices after it was primed and placed in our neighborhoods - if we hadn't abandoned those mom-and-pop stores to begin with--

              Then we wouldn't be stuck here, with no other options.

              I make on a regular basis to buy locally-made, or fair-trade, or from a smaller store, at a higher personal cost that as a wage slave, I can't really afford. Or else to do with out.

              I have not shopped at Wal-Mart, since I learned what they really were, no matter the personal inconvenience. And I encourage those I know to do likewise - not to mindlessly swallow the bait the Corpo Hegemony tosses us, because there's always a hook hidden in it, and by the time you realize it, it's in your guts.

              "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

              by bellatrys on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:56:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  WalMart's prices are not that low--my example (4.00 / 3)

          Recently I was installing bike and rowing Exerscape demos at a Parade of Homes house in Park City, UT. I needed a couple of audio cables and there was a WalMart and a Smith's grocery closeby. So I ended up going to WalMart, where I paid $3.97 for one of the cables. The other was also around $4, which I thought was excessive.

          So I went over to Smith's get get something from the deli for lunch, and thought while I'm here I may as well check to see if they have any of these cables and how much they are.

          Lo and behold, they not only had them, but I was able to get both cables for about $3.50. Less than half the price of WalMart.

          The "Always low prices" mantra is a scam.

          "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight

          by bewert on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:24:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Low Prices (4.00 / 2)

            I work in what is a very large grocery store and we pride ourselves on low prices (they also have a kickass health benefits program for even part-time work and starting wage is higher than any other retail store I know of). One thing they used to do when Wal*Mart came to town was have a cart of usual, basic items and show the price here and at Wal*Mart...unless a person goes in picking only what is cheaper at the moment at Wal*Mart, a cart of food is almost always cheaper at our store. Walmart shows thei "Cutting prices" but they only cut them on those few items. Its purely a lure.

            "Murrow had a child. The damn thing went wild." -- Fleetwood Mac
            (-8.63), (-7.03)

            by Perdition on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:56:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sure a lot of Wal Mart slaves (none / 0)

      voted for GOP the last election - because of gays. Let the poor and the outsiders/outcasts eat each other, while they laugh at the top. Classical conservatism.

      Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

      by Joe B on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:12:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The signs are all there (4.00 / 5)

    Obviously the package of diapers tipped them off that they were dealing with a scumbag on drugs, or probably a suicide bomber.

    He should have dropped to his knees, put his hands behind his head, and his forehead to the ground when the Authorities told him to stop, like all good Citizens.

    He was killed because he was stupid and didn't obey Authority, when that little two-year old grows up his momma should tell him all about it so he learns the lesson too.

    </extremelycynicalsnark>

    "If I dip my finger in purple ink, does that mean the Republican Secretary of State will count my vote?"

    by steppenwulf on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:50:01 AM PDT

    •  asdf (4.00 / 3)

      when that little two-year old grows up his momma should tell him all about it so he learns the lesson too

      Not two-year-old, two-month-old.  It's heartbreaking.  

      Even if the guy was actually shoplifting, he didn't deserve to die on the searing parking lot asphalt, leaving behind a child who will never know his father.

      I live in Houston and a friend at work heard a bastardized version of this story on a local radio morning show (the excerable rock-n-roll wingnuts Walton & Johnson).  He asked me last Thursday if I'd heard about the "guy who got apprehended by Walmart security for shoplifting, had a heart attack and is now suing."

      I told him the real story (having read it in the Chronicle the day before), and he seemed taken seriously taken aback that the DJs had left out the facts a) that the man died right there in the parking lot, b) the disgusting way he was apprehended and abused in front of dozens of witnesses, and c) the callous disregard of his life and safety by overzealous assbag Walmart employees.

      I sent him the link to the Chronicle article, along with the suggestion that he take anything said by Walton & Johnson with, not a grain of salt, but the entire Bonneville Salt Flats.

      I think his eyes have been opened about both Walmart and his beloved radio fucktards.

      I hope that Driver's family jams a multi-million dollar lawsuit far up Walmart's nether orifice ... and breaks it off.

      i am jack's complete lack of surprise -- fight club

      by bustacap on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:19:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm no fan of Wal-Mart, but the subject of this (none / 0)

    diary is a bit over-the-top.  Wal-Mart didn't kill the guy because he was shoplifting.

    Now maybe these guards' actions will be traced back to some abhorrent Wal-Mart policy.  Wal-Mart will undoubtedly be sued for a billion dollars.  But it sounds to me like these guards were just a-holes.  Putting weight on a guy's back?  Holding him down on the hot pavement with a knee to the neck?  Who hired these thugs?

    •  Walmart may well be responsible (4.00 / 5)

      There are two different tracks working here: possible criminal liability and civil liability.

      I know almost nothing of Ohio criminal law, but you can bet there is a prosecutor looking at the manslaughter statutes.  Depending on Walmart's written policies, etc., they might share in the responsibility here, although I can't imagine that their written policies and procedures would be such so as to trigger responsibility.  If it can be shown that the store manager knew what was going on and took no action, that might override the written word.

      As concerns civil liability, there is no question that Walmart will be a defendant.  Their first line of defense will be that the guards acted outside the scope of their authority, in violation of company policy, etc.  Again, the written policies will come into play.  However, even if their written documents are tight, the facts - long delay in calling for medical assistance, ignoring the guy's pleas and those voiced by witnesses, no indication that any management staff intervened, etc., will weigh heavily against them.

      Dead for probably less than $20 worth of stuff.  So goddam sad.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:52:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ooops..should read Texas, not Ohio (none / 0)

        Saw Cleveland and my mind slipped into Ohio mode.  Know nothing of their laws either, so no change.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:59:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Texas Justice (none / 0)

          Here in Texas, we're big on the death penalty.  I believe the stats show that we execute around three times as many people as the second most executing state.

          Now, assuming that Wal-Mart will try to use the "a few bad apples" defense and hang these guys out to dry, and considering that Wal-Mart employees are very poorly paid, there's a very good chance that they could be facing the death penalty.  This would give them a very good incentive to rat on their superiors in exchange for getting the death penalty taken off the table.

          Considering that I'm not nearly as gung ho about executing people as most people in Texas are, I'd be quite satisfied with that outcome.

          •  No Death Penalty (none / 0)

            Even though we're talking about Texas, it's very unlikely that this would be a capital murder case.  Manslaughter is much more likely, due to the circumstances of this man's death. I'm pretty sure the prosecutors would have to prove the employees intended to kill him for a murder charge to stick, whereas manslaughter is much more viable.

            "The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Finley Peter Dunne

            by Jack109 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 02:47:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Texas (none / 0)

              Again, this is the state where having proof that your defense attorney fell asleep during your trial isn't enough to win an appeal on the basis of incompetent council - you have to prove that he fell asleep during the important parts.

              And we don't have just one state supreme court - we have a civil state supreme court and a criminal state supreme court.  Why?  So we could process more death penalty cases.

              Though I'm betting that the prosecutor need merely mention taking the death penalty off the table to get a manslaughter plea and an agreement to testify about the workers' superiors and policies.

      •  Fine. IF there is an official policy to (none / 0)

        aggressively attack shoplifters.  But we don't know that yet.
    •  Duh, Walmart hired these thugs. (none / 0)

      n/t
      •  Really? The CEO and Board of Wal-Mart (none / 0)

        are hiring security guards at the Bentonville, OH store now?  Wow, that's hands on management.
        •  Yup (none / 0)

          They might not be directly criminally responsible but they set policy and the corporation sure as hell is responsible. My son works for one of Walmart's competitors and their "loss prevention" personnel would never physically touch a person in the parking lot. That these people did, and had handcuffs, indicate that WalMart does not train their staff in the same manner.
    •  Walmart is responsible..... (4.00 / 3)

      It is WALMART that has this very unusual and agressive policy of chasing suspected shoplifters out into a parking and it was WALMART that hired the thugs that held this guy on sizzling hot asphalt(?) for 30 minutes.

      If you bother to read the articles you will see that this goes against most mainstream recommended policy.

      A few years ago our car was broken into as part of a series of car burglaries that occured one night.  Somehow, our police tracked down the thieves in their truck, still full of stolen goods.  The thieves got out of the truck and ran into a wooded area.  The police didn't chase them down, let alone shoot.  Don't know if they ever were caught but we got our stolen items back.

      Even COPS don't generally take such aggressive action towards petty thiefs.  WALMART sure as HELL shouldn't be doing it.

      SHEESH!

      •  It is not WALMART the corporation that chased (none / 0)

        this man down.  WALMART may be responsible indirectly, in the sense that they pursue shop-lifters.  Clearly these guards acted abusively and the manager who hired them and whoever trained them has some questions to answer as well.

        But hating WALMART isn't an excuse to let your ability to think go flying out the window.  WALMART is bad enought without accusing it of sanctioning murder (Maybe they do, but I'll need actual evidence).

      •  Yes, Walmart is responsible, but... (none / 0)

        Walmart gets to feel the heat on this for all the reasons you mentioned, save one, possibly.  I have worked in retail (human resources/loss prevention) since I was 15, and I have never even heard of a company that would have a policy that would allow an employee to chase a shoplifter out of the building.  Walmart certainly has a reputation for aggressively prosecuting shoplifters, but they'd have to be completely insane to have a policy that states it's acceptable to pursue one.

        Walmart is all about the profit, as we all know.  That kind of policy could wreck a company.  In fact, every company I've ever dealt with (and that's a lot of them) has a policy that states exactly the opposite. If you physically restrain a suspect or give chase, you lose your job.  Period, no discussion.

        Now, Walmart is liable because...

        1. It was their employees that did this, acting under corporate authority, whether it was a company policy to do so or not.
        2. It happened on their property.
        3. They obviously failed to adequately train these associates.

        I've never worked for Walmart, but I have interviewed and hired dozens of LP folks away from there, so I am pretty familiar with their policies.  Unless someone in Bentonville has been smoking a lot of crack lately, there's no way it's their policy to physically assault shoplifters.

        Don't get the idea that I'm defending Walmart. I quit shopping there a long time ago, as I think they're a truly nasty corporation.  They've ruined thousands of small businesses, and they treat their employees like slaves.  I try to hire people away from there whenever I can.  But we do need to keep our facts straight.

        I'd be curious to know if these were LP associates or just cashiers and stock people who did this.  Doesn't really matter, I guess, but I'm still curious...

        "The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Finley Peter Dunne

        by Jack109 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 03:01:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wal-Mart hired 'these thugs' (none / 0)

      And, yes, Wal-mart killed a man for shop-lifting.  Or is it your position that the two security guards would have done the same thing had they not been hired by Wal-mart?

      Say nothing once, why say it again? - Talking Heads

      by Jason on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:08:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? The CEO and Board of Wal-Mart (1.50 / 2)

        are hiring security guards at the Bentonville, OH store now?  Wow, that's hands on management.

        So no, "Wal-Mart" the corporation did not kill a man for shop-lifting.  C'mon, hating Wal-Mart isn't an excuse to ignore basic prinicples of logic.

    •  Walmart is responsible just like Bush is. (none / 0)

      It is walmart the corporation that installs its aggressive policies and it is walmart the corporation that fosters a culture of us vs. them and the company above all else. Walmart's response to this tragedy simply enforces such a culture. And in keeping with the Bush analogy, I fully expect these killers to be promoted to store managers.
      •  Ridiculous. Is there some proof that Wal-Mart (none / 0)

        approves of killing shoplifters?  We do have proof of BushCo's involvement in the Abu Graib/Gitmo abuse.  Please do not compare the two without some evidence to back it up.
        •  Liability is liability, no matter how you slice it (none / 0)

          (Discliamer: I'm not familiar with Texas law, but the principles that govern liability are pretty static between states)

          Without seeing any evidence, and just knowing the facts as presented as discussed here, I'll say this.  The main argument against Wal-Mart being liable for their employee's actions seems to be that there's at least a possibility that the level of aggression shown by those employee's is not sanctioned (might even be specifically proscribed) by Wal-Mart's security and loss prevention policies.

          But, even is that's true, I believe that law and precedent generally indicate that Wal-Mart (as a corporation) still holds liability, because those employees were on duty, and thus acting as agents of WalMart at the time the tort (civil wrong) was committed.  A corporation has a duty to adequately and effectively supervise its employees, and as WalMart didn't, the corporation is responsible for torts committed by its agents.

          There may or may not also be separate liability issues against the manager of the particular store, as well as the employees that actually did the deed.

          I would imagine that, if this thing makes it to the litigation stage (as it most certainly will; WalMart is notoriously stingy about settling), the complaint will probably be for a variety of torts, including the biggie - wrongful death.  Possibly also false arrest, malicious conduct, negligence of some kind, etc.

          As far as criminal charges go, again, I don't know Texas law, but as the state in general seems to love reasons to put folks away, it's pretty likely that they have various manslaughter charges available.  I wouldn't be surprised if the employees plead out to an involuntary manslaughter or something like that.  It definitely wouldn't be a capital murder case, in my opinion, as has been suggested earlier in the thread, because of what seems to be a lack of premeditation.  The guards/cashiers/whatever didn't intend to kill the vic.

          Just my two cents.  (It was worth $1.25 before WalMart moved in!)

  •  Texans.... (none / 1)

    Highest death penalty rate in the country.   It is very sad.  Some hyped up security guy kills someone in a parking lot to do his job.

    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

    by murrayewv on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:14:56 AM PDT

  •  Yep, got all the facts here. (none / 1)

    Walmart is as guilty as they come.  
  •  Walmart: (4.00 / 7)

    Test-bed for America's future, when all government functions have been outsourced, the rule of law has become corporate security policies, and redress for the average citizen consists of listening to answering machines.

    Don't ever say we didn't see this coming.

    Whatever is real is different.-- B. Traven

    by angry blue planet on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 04:29:23 AM PDT

    •  When corporations rule the world (none / 0)

      it's a very cold place to live in.

      Soviet style communism v/s American capitalism - in both systems freedom is impossible. Freedom comes from decentralization, i.e less intrusive and centralized government and no big unaccountable corporations.

      - Libertarianism/US capitalism
      Despotism. Individual/corporation -----> individual.

      - Communism
      Despotism. Government -----> individual.

      - Liberalism
      Freedom. Individual <----> Government <----> Individual

      Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

      by Joe B on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:19:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There you go... (none / 0)

    Just got a chainletter 2 weeks ago begging me to boycott Target because they wouldn't let veterans collect at the door.

    They suggested shopping at a truly patriotic store. Yup.  Walmart.

    Wish I hadn't deleted it, I would be using the forward to send out your diary.

    God knows I need a crutch at times To help this gimpy soul of mine along But not a Burning Truth That we must kill each other over.-Ric Masten

    by deminmarineland on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 05:03:13 AM PDT

    •  I've heard about this (none / 0)

      I know now some stores aren't letting any group collect in front of their stores because it got disruptive and customers complained.  I think there was a real controversy at Christmas because they wouldn't let the Salvation Army collect at the door.

      Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 05:29:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep (none / 1)

        They actually stopped letting anyone collect in front of their stores, not just that particular veterans group...

        Compare their charitable donations with WalMart's, and tell me who the real villain is.

        I'm suprised that urban legend is still going around, it has been thoroughly debunked.

        by Burton Halli on