• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Justice, Wal-Mart style

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: waggy
This is not a wal-mart issue (besides they worked for walmart). this is some guys thought they were big and taugh and wanted to show off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the sad part is, Wal-Mart will be sued, and whether or not these people wins will depend on what Wal-Mart's policies on stopping shoplifters is, and how well they communicated it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there wiall, and SHOULD be a civil suit (murder, IMO does not fall under frivolous lawsuits), there also MUST be criminal proceedings. Clearly, whoever held him down was out of control and may well be a danger to others.
Click to expand...

yes i fully agree. i just wanted to get my point in before the Wal-mart bashing started (suprised it hasent yet). i feel that a civil suit and criminal suit is justified.
Click to expand...


I agree. THis is a clear case of rampant stupidity and no use of common sense at all. Sounds like a bunch of "good 'ole boys" that were too busy slapping themselves on the back to realize the guy was really injured. I mean, come on, the guy was cuffed. Was the knee in the neck thing really necessary?

<--- former back in the day wal mart employee that has chased his fair share of shoplifters
 
Originally posted by: amdskip
I'd like to know where the handcuffs came from. If the cops handcuffed him then wouldn't they get in trouble too for not letting him up? I really don't think Wilmar would handcuff him.
Click to expand...
There has to be some legal means by which you can detain people that steal from you or otherwise threaten you, but I don't know what the limits are. Clearly you can't kill someone, so obviously what they did was wrong, but I don't know how much of the detaining would be considered illegal.
 
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: waggy
This is not a wal-mart issue (besides they worked for walmart). this is some guys thought they were big and taugh and wanted to show off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the sad part is, Wal-Mart will be sued, and whether or not these people wins will depend on what Wal-Mart's policies on stopping shoplifters is, and how well they communicated it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there wiall, and SHOULD be a civil suit (murder, IMO does not fall under frivolous lawsuits), there also MUST be criminal proceedings. Clearly, whoever held him down was out of control and may well be a danger to others.
Click to expand...
But do you blame Wal-Mart or the employees. If Wal-Mart's policy is clearly against this, then how can they be held responsible for what some over-zealous employees do?

At the same time, if their "official" policy is to be gentle with people, but in practice, the managers are telling you how to perform a choke hold, then yes, Wal-Mart can - and should - be held liable.
 
For the life of me I can't figure out why $7.00/hr cashiers and shelf-stockers would want to act like police? To me, my life worth more then any crap shoplifter can carry.
 
Originally posted by: Phoenix15
Originally posted by: lokiju
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.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would you steal if you can afford to take flying classes? 😕

Darwin wins!
Click to expand...



Looks like the family is saying that he didn't shoplift. Imagine the shiat Wal Mart is in if he was innocent. (Not that they are in the clear now)
Click to expand...

walmart is in big shiat either way. someone died in the custody of their employees. the family will sue walmart for millions.
while i dont agree with a civil suit, i do belive those employees who had a hand in this should be charged and sent to prison
 
Originally posted by: AnyMal
For the life of me I can't figure out why $7.00/hr cashiers and shelf-stockers would want to act like police? To me, my life worth more then any crap shoplifter can carry.
Click to expand...
I've caught my fair share of shoplifters, and honestly, it is fun. But I NEVER hit or otherwise harmed one. So I understand wanting to catch someone shoplifting, but I don't understand the excessive force.
 
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: waggy
This is not a wal-mart issue (besides they worked for walmart). this is some guys thought they were big and taugh and wanted to show off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the sad part is, Wal-Mart will be sued, and whether or not these people wins will depend on what Wal-Mart's policies on stopping shoplifters is, and how well they communicated it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there wiall, and SHOULD be a civil suit (murder, IMO does not fall under frivolous lawsuits), there also MUST be criminal proceedings. Clearly, whoever held him down was out of control and may well be a danger to others.
Click to expand...
But do you blame Wal-Mart or the employees. If Wal-Mart's policy is clearly against this, then how can they be held responsible for what some over-zealous employees do?

At the same time, if their "official" policy is to be gentle with people, but in practice, the managers are telling you how to perform a choke hold, then yes, Wal-Mart can - and should - be held liable.
Click to expand...

Which is what a trial is for. To find out these things, and determine if the corporation should be fined for its policies, in addition to the criminal proceedings against the individual in question.
 
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: waggy
This is not a wal-mart issue (besides they worked for walmart). this is some guys thought they were big and taugh and wanted to show off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the sad part is, Wal-Mart will be sued, and whether or not these people wins will depend on what Wal-Mart's policies on stopping shoplifters is, and how well they communicated it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there wiall, and SHOULD be a civil suit (murder, IMO does not fall under frivolous lawsuits), there also MUST be criminal proceedings. Clearly, whoever held him down was out of control and may well be a danger to others.
Click to expand...
But do you blame Wal-Mart or the employees. If Wal-Mart's policy is clearly against this, then how can they be held responsible for what some over-zealous employees do?

At the same time, if their "official" policy is to be gentle with people, but in practice, the managers are telling you how to perform a choke hold, then yes, Wal-Mart can - and should - be held liable.
Click to expand...

well the investgation should find out if wal-mart authorized such force (the choking and such) but for the murder of the guy i blame the workers.

They are the ones that held him face down with someone on his back even when they knew he was haveing trouble breathing. They are the ones that failed to call 911 at the first signs of trouble. They were the ones that had to show that shoplifter a thing or two about stealing from them!

But i do not think wal-mart is blameless. they should have had better training on what to do. there was a bad lapse of training. If they are going to allow the workers to handcuff they better train them on to handle bad situations.

 
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ilmater
But do you blame Wal-Mart or the employees. If Wal-Mart's policy is clearly against this, then how can they be held responsible for what some over-zealous employees do?

At the same time, if their "official" policy is to be gentle with people, but in practice, the managers are telling you how to perform a choke hold, then yes, Wal-Mart can - and should - be held liable.
Click to expand...

Which is what a trial is for. To find out these things, and determine if the corporation should be fined for its policies, in addition to the criminal proceedings against the individual in question.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But there are many instances when companies get screwed that don't deserve it. So many people think they're entitled to money when something like this happens no matter what Wal-Mart's policies are. They're angry at the death and so they sue Wal-Mart for millions because they feel that makes up for the loss. But Wal-Mart (as much as I hate it) doesn't deserve to be punished if it was clear that this is not acceptable behavior.
 
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ilmater
But do you blame Wal-Mart or the employees. If Wal-Mart's policy is clearly against this, then how can they be held responsible for what some over-zealous employees do?

At the same time, if their "official" policy is to be gentle with people, but in practice, the managers are telling you how to perform a choke hold, then yes, Wal-Mart can - and should - be held liable.
Click to expand...

Which is what a trial is for. To find out these things, and determine if the corporation should be fined for its policies, in addition to the criminal proceedings against the individual in question.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But there are many instances when companies get screwed that don't deserve it. So many people think they're entitled to money when something like this happens no matter what Wal-Mart's policies are. They're angry at the death and so they sue Wal-Mart for millions because they feel that makes up for the loss. But Wal-Mart (as much as I hate it) doesn't deserve to be punished if it was clear that this is not acceptable behavior.
Click to expand...


well to be honest wal-mart should pay. IT was there employees that MURDERED the man.

Even if wal-mart has clear policies (which I'm sure they do) on how to handle a shoplifter. those polices were not followed. When someone has the power to throw you down and handcuff you they darn well be trained right.

If wal-mart does not want to train them right then they need to change how they deal with shoplifters. There is no excuse for the execution for petty theft.


 
Originally posted by: waggy
But i do not think wal-mart is blameless. they should have had better training on what to do. there was a bad lapse of training. If they are going to allow the workers to handcuff they better train them on to handle bad situations.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the chance of Wal-Mart not getting some fault here is minimal, but they'll be punished as if they TOLD their employees to do this, where I think 90% of the blame goes on the employees.
 
I shop at this store sometimes and I never heard of this event until now. I can't say I have any sympathy for what happens to thieves but if they had handcuffs on the guy why didn't they let him off the pavement? I doubt much will come of this since they were not trying to kill the guy. With adrenalin pumping people can make some really stupid decisions and with criminals these days it is better to assume they have a weapon than get yourself injured. It is sad the guy died but if he was stealing then he brought it on himself whether it was justified or not, and if he was not stealing then why was he running? Like I said, I have no sympathy for the ills that befall a thief as they are the scum of the earth.
 
Everybody is partially at fault. The thief of running and struggling, the cretans known as wal-mart employees for pinning him to the burning pavement. Sigh... that store really attracts this nations best and brightest dont it.
 
Policies don't equal the law. Maybe if wal-mart wasn't so stingy it would have done more thorough backround checks and training on the people they hire to do security. They'll probably lose 10-20 million from this after lawyers and awards, which is absolutely nothing for walmart. If thats nothing though, how much would it cost to NOT have potential murderers on the payroll?
 
Originally posted by: Ronstang
I shop at this store sometimes and I never heard of this event until now. I can't say I have any sympathy for what happens to thieves but if they had handcuffs on the guy why didn't they let him off the pavement? I doubt much will come of this since they were not trying to kill the guy. With adrenalin pumping people can make some really stupid decisions and with criminals these days it is better to assume they have a weapon than get yourself injured. It is sad the guy died but if he was stealing then he brought it on himself whether it was justified or not, and if he was not stealing then why was he running? Like I said, I have no sympathy for the ills that befall a thief as they are the scum of the earth.
Click to expand...

The authorities now think that he wasn't a thief....
 
How exactly did this guy die? I mean yeah, the pavement was hot, but wouldn't he suffer from burns rather than being asphyxiated or having a heart attack? People live through fires where 90% of their body is burned.

Walmart will definitely get sued, no doubt about that. You can practically see $$$ signs in the pupils of any lawyer associated with this case. Whether or not they're responsible is dependent upon what policies and training they have in place. I expect their policies to be perfectly reasonable and "correct" for lack of a better term, but I fully expect Walmart to lose regardless of the facts. It doesn't take much to convince a jury these days that a big bad company was at fault and should be fined millions (after all, they can afford it so it's justifiable).
 
Originally posted by: lokiju
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.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would you steal if you can afford to take flying classes? 😕

Darwin wins!


Edit: after reading the rest of that I do think Wal-Mart employees went to far, they didn't need to pin him down like that and the guy putting his knee in the guys neck was a but much IMO.
Click to expand...


it's well-known that many who steal do so for the thrill, as they usually can afford what they steal. There are the ones who can't, but in this case....
 
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: waggy
This is not a wal-mart issue (besides they worked for walmart). this is some guys thought they were big and taugh and wanted to show off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the sad part is, Wal-Mart will be sued, and whether or not these people wins will depend on what Wal-Mart's policies on stopping shoplifters is, and how well they communicated it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there wiall, and SHOULD be a civil suit (murder, IMO does not fall under frivolous lawsuits), there also MUST be criminal proceedings. Clearly, whoever held him down was out of control and may well be a danger to others.
Click to expand...
But do you blame Wal-Mart or the employees. If Wal-Mart's policy is clearly against this, then how can they be held responsible for what some over-zealous employees do?

At the same time, if their "official" policy is to be gentle with people, but in practice, the managers are telling you how to perform a choke hold, then yes, Wal-Mart can - and should - be held liable.
Click to expand...


The fact that five? employees were in on it makes me think they were following some sort of company procedure, though it could have been misinterpreted. Were they following it as-written, or no? Guess we wait and find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top