• 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 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: kinev
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: kinev
Y'all are forgettin' this happened in Texas. I don't know if it's different for employees/businesses, but if someone is stealing your stuff, you can use deadly force to stop them. Period. Is that over the top? Maybe, but I would sure as heck think twice about stealing something in Texas. Combine this with the conceal and carry law and you have a pretty good deterrent.
Click to expand...

He wasn't stealing from the employees. He was stealing from the store.
Click to expand...

True, which is why I said it might be different for employees/businesses. The way I see it, if WalMart can be sued for their actions, they were acting on WalMart's behalf as agents of WalMart.

TEXAS PENAL CODE
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
~ ~ (3) he reasonably believes that:
~ ~ ~ (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
~ ~ ~ (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he:
~ ~ (1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony or theft; or
~ ~ (2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony or theft, in a building or habitation; or
~ ~ (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.

Of course, this case is not cut and dry considering that they were just employees and that they had already restrained him. But, my point is that in Texas, you can use deadly force to protect your property. Will this protect WalMart or the employees from a civil suit? No, but I seriously doubt there will be criminal charges.

Oh yeah.....Don't mess with Texas. 😀
Click to expand...


WTF!!! Shoplifting is not burglary, its not even close. They are two completly different crimes and are treated as such. a store clerk can not blast a shoplifter with the twelve guage that is hidden under the counter. Nor is it lawful for a store employee to kill a shoplifter by a choke hold, knee in the back while laying on blistering hot asphalt.
 
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he: ~ ~ (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.


That's using definition THREE for burglary for Texas. This was a man, without consent of walmart, that entered a building (walmart) and commited a THEFT.

So did the man commit Burglary in the state of Texas? YES

Is that grounds for use of deadly force in the state of Texas? Damn right it is. The walmart employee never had to even try to tackle the guy. Just pulled out a gun and shot him in the back of the head. That's it. Case over. He TRIED to subdue the man without intent to cause death. It just happened. Could the walmart employee's have taken measures to prevent it? Yes but it's not something to reasonably expect them to in the eyes of Texas law because they aren't trained to do so.

Gah, while I dislike the law somewhat because of stuff like this, it's there for a reason. The walmat employee's broke ZERO laws for Texas. They didn't murder anyone.
Click to expand...


:laugh: you guys are too much. according to you, shoplifting (a misdemeanor) is now burglary (a felony). :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
In most states even if you do catch someone shoplifting you can't do anything but call the police. If you touch them, it can be grounds for assault, and if you try and detain them, you can be arrested/sued for false imprisonment. It's a no-win situation for retailers, which is why most companies just tell employees to let the shoplifter walk out and hope the police do something about it.
 
Now, if the fun part is the man's family lawyer is going to try to prove the man WASN'T shoplifting. If the man wasn't stealing, then he's not commiting a burglary, and thus rules out grounds for use of deadly force. Then it is murder and the whole thing gets screwy.

THAT is why Walmart and stores don't usually stop shoplifters. Why? because they could be wrong. If they are wrong about the man shoplifting, the whole shebang is going to blow sky high. If he was stealing though then walmart and it's employees were within their legal right to act as they did.
 
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he: ~ ~ (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.


That's using definition THREE for burglary for Texas. This was a man, without consent of walmart, that entered a building (walmart) and commited a THEFT.

So did the man commit Burglary in the state of Texas? YES

Is that grounds for use of deadly force in the state of Texas? Damn right it is. The walmart employee never had to even try to tackle the guy. Just pulled out a gun and shot him in the back of the head. That's it. Case over. He TRIED to subdue the man without intent to cause death. It just happened. Could the walmart employee's have taken measures to prevent it? Yes but it's not something to reasonably expect them to in the eyes of Texas law because they aren't trained to do so.

Gah, while I dislike the law somewhat because of stuff like this, it's there for a reason. The walmat employee's broke ZERO laws for Texas. They didn't murder anyone.
Click to expand...


:laugh: you guys are too much. according to you, shoplifting (a misdemeanor) is now burglary (a felony). :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Click to expand...


IN THE STATE OF TEXAS SHOPLIFTING IS BURGLARY AND CAN BE TREATED AS A FELONY.

Maybe not in your state but in Texas IT IS. Get that through your thick skull!!!! That's what I'm trying to point out as my mom IS A FREAKING LAWYER and I just called and asked her.
 
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he: ~ ~ (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.


That's using definition THREE for burglary for Texas. This was a man, without consent of walmart, that entered a building (walmart) and commited a THEFT.

So did the man commit Burglary in the state of Texas? YES

Is that grounds for use of deadly force in the state of Texas? Damn right it is. The walmart employee never had to even try to tackle the guy. Just pulled out a gun and shot him in the back of the head. That's it. Case over. He TRIED to subdue the man without intent to cause death. It just happened. Could the walmart employee's have taken measures to prevent it? Yes but it's not something to reasonably expect them to in the eyes of Texas law because they aren't trained to do so.

Gah, while I dislike the law somewhat because of stuff like this, it's there for a reason. The walmat employee's broke ZERO laws for Texas. They didn't murder anyone.
Click to expand...


you are a complete dumbass. shoplifting is NOT grounds to use deadly force, i dont care what state you are in. shooting a shopifter in the back of the head or anywhere resulting in death is murder. Store empolyees or owners can not execute shoplifters.
 
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...

Walmart can be sued and will. The employees are working on Walmarts dime and thus are acting as agents representing the company. That opens the door for lawsuits to be filed against the company and the individuals. It's just like the Rodney King trial or any other police brutality trial. The officer and the department can be sued in civil court because the officer was acting in behalf of the department.
 
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he: ~ ~ (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.


That's using definition THREE for burglary for Texas. This was a man, without consent of walmart, that entered a building (walmart) and commited a THEFT.

So did the man commit Burglary in the state of Texas? YES

Is that grounds for use of deadly force in the state of Texas? Damn right it is. The walmart employee never had to even try to tackle the guy. Just pulled out a gun and shot him in the back of the head. That's it. Case over. He TRIED to subdue the man without intent to cause death. It just happened. Could the walmart employee's have taken measures to prevent it? Yes but it's not something to reasonably expect them to in the eyes of Texas law because they aren't trained to do so.

Gah, while I dislike the law somewhat because of stuff like this, it's there for a reason. The walmat employee's broke ZERO laws for Texas. They didn't murder anyone.
Click to expand...


:laugh: you guys are too much. according to you, shoplifting (a misdemeanor) is now burglary (a felony). :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Click to expand...


IN THE STATE OF TEXAS SHOPLIFTING IS BURGLARY AND CAN BE TREATED AS A FELONY.

Maybe not in your state but in Texas IT IS. Get that through your thick skull!!!! That's what I'm trying to point out as my mom IS A FREAKING LAWYER and I just called and asked her.
Click to expand...

Bullsh*t. if that was the case the penal code would spefically state that. So call your mom and get the section where it says in the TPC that shoplifting is equal to burglary.
 
Originally posted by: Citrix

you are a complete dumbass. shoplifting is NOT grounds to use deadly force, i dont care what state you are in. shooting a shopifter in the back of the head or anywhere resulting in death is murder. Store empolyees or owners can not execute shoplifters.
Click to expand...

Your feelings on the matter are irrelavant. Yes, Texas is completely nuts. I agree. But the LAW IS THE LAW. Shoplifting as defined by Texas law is Burglary. It is a Felony. Burglary gives grounds for use of deadly force. That is the law and until it is changed will remain that way for Texas. Usually though, someone caught shoplifting doesn't get a felony as the judge/prosecutors tend to wave it down to a really minor misdemeanor depending upon the circumstances of the event.

As I said. You can think it's wrong all you want, and I'll agree with you. I live in this screwy state but our feelings make ZERO difference with regards to the law. This event, if the guy was indeed commiting Theft in a building which is burglary, then the employee's acted lawfully.

I know, it doesn't seem sane, and I don't think it is. Many Texans will disagree though as this law was voted on by the people and institutioned by the people. They wanted it this way, and it doesn't go against the Constitution either as it is our right to defend life, liberty, happiness, and property. The constitution doesn't go into specifics of HOW we can defend those as it leaves that up to the States to make that decision. Texas made the decision that use of deadly force is perfectly acceptable to defends one's property.

So yes, if you walk onto my property at night, I can pull out a gun and shoot you. If you walk into my garage during the day to "borrow" my rake I can shoot you. In the back of the head for all the law cares. That is the LAW.

 
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he: ~ ~ (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.


That's using definition THREE for burglary for Texas. This was a man, without consent of walmart, that entered a building (walmart) and commited a THEFT.

So did the man commit Burglary in the state of Texas? YES

Is that grounds for use of deadly force in the state of Texas? Damn right it is. The walmart employee never had to even try to tackle the guy. Just pulled out a gun and shot him in the back of the head. That's it. Case over. He TRIED to subdue the man without intent to cause death. It just happened. Could the walmart employee's have taken measures to prevent it? Yes but it's not something to reasonably expect them to in the eyes of Texas law because they aren't trained to do so.

Gah, while I dislike the law somewhat because of stuff like this, it's there for a reason. The walmat employee's broke ZERO laws for Texas. They didn't murder anyone.
Click to expand...


:laugh: you guys are too much. according to you, shoplifting (a misdemeanor) is now burglary (a felony). :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Click to expand...


IN THE STATE OF TEXAS SHOPLIFTING IS BURGLARY AND CAN BE TREATED AS A FELONY.

Maybe not in your state but in Texas IT IS. Get that through your thick skull!!!! That's what I'm trying to point out as my mom IS A FREAKING LAWYER and I just called and asked her.
Click to expand...

what's your mother's name so I can NEVER USE HER AS A LAWYER!!! :laugh:

shoplifting is theft. NOT burglary.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes...PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000031.00.htm

that's the relevant section of the penal code dealing with shoplifting. its a misdemeanor.
 
Originally posted by: So
Well, the people who held him to the ground should definitely be tried for murder.
Click to expand...
They almost certainly won't be tried for murder. Manslaughter, possibly. But definitely not murder.
 
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he:
~ ~ (1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony or theft; or
~ ~ (2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony or theft, in a building or habitation; or
~ ~ (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.

Does he have the ownes permission to enter WalMart? Yes. Once he commits a theft, does he have permission? No. Did he commit a theft? Yes. Was he attempting to commit a theft? Yes. Is it a burglary, then? Yes. Does burglary fall under the deadly force provision? Yes. Will WalMart and these employees get sued? You betcha.

Also, you could make a case for robbery if the guy resisted. The article said that he resisted to the point that his shirt came off. All he had to do was make one of the guys stopping him fear bodily injury while stopping him and BOOM robbery and deadly force justification.

Sec. 29.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
~ ~ (1) "In the course of committing theft" means conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.
~ ~ (2) "Property" means:
~ ~ ~ (A) tangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or
~ ~ ~ (B) a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value.

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
~ ~ (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
~ ~ (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
~ (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

There are a lot of unkowns here, but Texas tends to side against the criminals.

 
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he: ~ ~ (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.


That's using definition THREE for burglary for Texas. This was a man, without consent of walmart, that entered a building (walmart) and commited a THEFT.

So did the man commit Burglary in the state of Texas? YES

Is that grounds for use of deadly force in the state of Texas? Damn right it is. The walmart employee never had to even try to tackle the guy. Just pulled out a gun and shot him in the back of the head. That's it. Case over. He TRIED to subdue the man without intent to cause death. It just happened. Could the walmart employee's have taken measures to prevent it? Yes but it's not something to reasonably expect them to in the eyes of Texas law because they aren't trained to do so.

Gah, while I dislike the law somewhat because of stuff like this, it's there for a reason. The walmat employee's broke ZERO laws for Texas. They didn't murder anyone.
Click to expand...
So, I take my life in my hands every time I enter Walmart? I have to hope that some guy who can't hit the urinal on the first squirt doesn't decide to off me because he's just sure that I pocketed some tic-tacs?

None of us know whether or not the guy did any crime. What we do know is that he's on a cold table with a tag on his toe due to some Wal-mart employees.

If he'd been arrested, would the arresting officer pop a cap in him just because it is Texas? Gimme a break. Even if you play armchair quarterback and look up statutes, anyone with an IQ above room temperature could tell that this is not the way it is supposed to work.
 
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Originally posted by: Citrix

you are a complete dumbass. shoplifting is NOT grounds to use deadly force, i dont care what state you are in. shooting a shopifter in the back of the head or anywhere resulting in death is murder. Store empolyees or owners can not execute shoplifters.
Click to expand...

Your feelings on the matter are irrelavant. Yes, Texas is completely nuts. I agree. But the LAW IS THE LAW. Shoplifting as defined by Texas law is Burglary. It is a Felony. Burglary gives grounds for use of deadly force. That is the law and until it is changed will remain that way for Texas. Usually though, someone caught shoplifting doesn't get a felony as the judge/prosecutors tend to wave it down to a really minor misdemeanor depending upon the circumstances of the event.

As I said. You can think it's wrong all you want, and I'll agree with you. I live in this screwy state but our feelings make ZERO difference with regards to the law. This event, if the guy was indeed commiting Theft in a building which is burglary, then the employee's acted lawfully.

I know, it doesn't seem sane, and I don't think it is. Many Texans will disagree though as this law was voted on by the people and institutioned by the people. They wanted it this way, and it doesn't go against the Constitution either as it is our right to defend life, liberty, happiness, and property. The constitution doesn't go into specifics of HOW we can defend those as it leaves that up to the States to make that decision. Texas made the decision that use of deadly force is perfectly acceptable to defends one's property.

So yes, if you walk onto my property at night, I can pull out a gun and shoot you. If you walk into my garage during the day to "borrow" my rake I can shoot you. In the back of the head for all the law cares. That is the LAW.
Click to expand...


Im going to PM DonVito and get his expert opinion.

Edit: PM sent.
 

Lets assume this guy was guilty and shoplifted and then took off running. He was tackled and handcuffed and was now detained. He is not much of a threat now....

I think at this point using deadly force is out of the question. I mean, if an officer has you handcuffed he's not supposed to sit on your back and another one shove his knee into your neck for long periods of time, suffocating you. That to me seems illegal no matter who is doing it. You are already detained the suspect therefore the use of deadly force is no longer an option unless he were to get loose or get a weapon and become a serious threat.

Police officers usually use mace if you struggle, after your cuffed they lift you up put you in the back of a car or sit you down on the street or curb until they finish with you.

These stupid employees cuffed him and continued to sit on him and keep their knee on his neck. C'mon now, common sense says this will seriously hurt or kill someone.



 
from the link i posted dealing with theft in texas:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the property
stolen is less than:
(A) $50; or
(B) $20 and the defendant obtained the property
by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order in a manner
described by Section 31.06;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if:
(A) the value of the property stolen is:
(i) $50 or more but less than $500; or
(ii) $20 or more but less than $500 and the
defendant obtained the property by issuing or passing a check or
similar sight order in a manner described by Section 31.06; or
(B) the value of the property stolen is less
than:
(i) $50 and the defendant has previously
been convicted of any grade of theft; or
(ii) $20, the defendant has previously been
convicted of any grade of theft, and the defendant obtained the
property by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order in a
manner described by Section 31.06;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property
stolen is $500 or more but less than $1,500;

note, that texas is actually more generous then some states in that up to $1500 is still a misdemeanor whereas a lot of states have it at $500.
 
Originally posted by: kinev
Yeah. They're screwed if he didn't actually do it. That's why you have to make darn sure you're right.

Also, you could make a case for robbery if the guy resisted. The article said that he resisted to the point that his shirt came off. All he had to do was make one of the guys stopping him fear bodily injury while stopping him and BOOM robbery and deadly force justification.

There are a lot of unkowns here, but Texas tends to side against the criminals.
Click to expand...
They didn't have the right to forcibly stop him like that in the first place
 
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he: ~ ~ (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.


That's using definition THREE for burglary for Texas. This was a man, without consent of walmart, that entered a building (walmart) and commited a THEFT.

So did the man commit Burglary in the state of Texas? YES

Is that grounds for use of deadly force in the state of Texas? Damn right it is. The walmart employee never had to even try to tackle the guy. Just pulled out a gun and shot him in the back of the head. That's it. Case over. He TRIED to subdue the man without intent to cause death. It just happened. Could the walmart employee's have taken measures to prevent it? Yes but it's not something to reasonably expect them to in the eyes of Texas law because they aren't trained to do so.

Gah, while I dislike the law somewhat because of stuff like this, it's there for a reason. The walmat employee's broke ZERO laws for Texas. They didn't murder anyone.
Click to expand...


:laugh: you guys are too much. according to you, shoplifting (a misdemeanor) is now burglary (a felony). :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Click to expand...


IN THE STATE OF TEXAS SHOPLIFTING IS BURGLARY AND CAN BE TREATED AS A FELONY.

Maybe not in your state but in Texas IT IS. Get that through your thick skull!!!! That's what I'm trying to point out as my mom IS A FREAKING LAWYER and I just called and asked her.
Click to expand...

what's your mother's name so I can NEVER USE HER AS A LAWYER!!! :laugh:

shoplifting is theft. NOT burglary.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes...PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000031.00.htm
Click to expand...



GAH, there is no legal definition for the term "shoplifting" in the state of Texas. There is THEFT, and then there is Burglary. All forms of burglary = THEFT. Not all forms of theft = burglary. Got that? Theft is defined as taking property without consent of the owner basically. Or click on that link for the more legal mumbo jumbo. Here's an example.

I have a rake I use but I accidentally leave it out in the middle of the street. You walk by, see the rake, and take my rake. That is THEFT. It's a form of theft I can't use deadly force against even if I witnessed yor stealing my rake and came to stop you.

Now, If that rake was in my garage and you walked on my property and took it out of my garagage. You just commited burglary. I can use deadly force in this instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top