• 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 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
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.
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.

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.
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.


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.

Anyone who expects ordinary walmart employees to be able to follow written instructions is giving these people too much credit. I returned a video card and the woman was like "oh it's an electronics item, you can't return it because it might've gotten a virus or something".
 
Originally posted by: junkerman123
how can people be against the death penalty after reading stuff like this....

edit: wait, it's texas, these bastards might all still fry....yesssssss

word...i hope they fry every employee who didn't listen. Somebody got him a rug to lay on for chrissake. What the fvck?
 
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
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.
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.

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.
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.


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.

Anyone who expects ordinary walmart employees to be able to follow written instructions is giving these people too much credit. I returned a video card and the woman was like "oh it's an electronics item, you can't return it because it might've gotten a virus or something".

I thought they had pictograph versions of their employee manuals.
 
Originally posted by: Triumph
How exactly did this guy die?

Portz said one of the Wal-Mart employees had Driver in a choke hold as other employees pinned his body to the ground.

"He was begging, 'Please, I'm burning, let me up,' " Portz said of Driver. "He'd push himself up off the blacktop, like he was doing a push-up.

"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."
========================================================
Bolded lines is how he died.

Pressure on Neck and back, throat closed and ribs could not move.

He died of aphixiation (Not enough Air for 4 minutes to the brain)

Bouncers killed an Atlanta College kid this past January in front of Club Razzoo the same way.

January 4, 2005: NAACP Calls For Federal Probe Of Bourbon Street Death
 
Having the death penalty for any major crime would eliminate pretty much all crime overnight, right?

No more shoplifting, no more mugging, no more theft. Would it be worth it?
 
Originally posted by: Ketteringo
Having the death penalty for any major crime would eliminate pretty much all crime overnight, right?

No more shoplifting, no more mugging, no more theft. Would it be worth it?

Interesting theory, but thats assuming that there is no error in the law. If you shoot enough wrongly accused people get ready for a revolution.
 
Originally posted by: Ketteringo
Having the death penalty for any major crime would eliminate pretty much all crime overnight, right?

No more shoplifting, no more mugging, no more theft. Would it be worth it?

The Constitution prevents cruel and unusual punishment.
 
My question is why didn't the employees call the police? Where I worked we had to actually see the person take an item off the shelf and leave the store. When we did we first called the police then made sure the person didn't leave. They had like 9 minutes to call the cops on the guy and didn't, but they took it upon themselves to handcuff him? Seems barbaric to me, leave that work up to the men who are professionally trained to do it.
 
was the guy committing a felony? no, not from the value of the items he stole.
was it night time? no, the article said this happened during the day.
it fails the test for justifiable under texas state law.

so the employees are screwed. they can all be charged for manslaughter.
 
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.
 
The employees went too far. They had him cuffed. They could have let him up. Someone even brought a rug to lay him down on and one employee says he's fine where he is (Roasting alive on the blacktop)

Jail time for those fvckers and perhaps execute a few of them. :|
 
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.

He wasn't stealing from the employees. He was stealing from the store.
 
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.

He wasn't stealing from the employees. He was stealing from the store.


Doesn't matter, in Texas you can use anything up to and including deadly force against trespassers and burglars. Shoplifting still falls under burglary, but is usually not considered as big a crime because the items in usually stolen while shoplifting are usually under $1000. Over that, and it gets a burglarly charge which is a pretty serious felony offense. But shoplifting is a misdemeanor form of burglarly last I remembered. So that means that, yes, they can by the law in Texas kill him. Strange but true. It's Walmart's private property. The employee's were defending it. Hence, it's all legal.

Personally though, I think the Wal-mart employees were frikking retards and should get get theirs nuts kicked so hard they wear them as a neck-tie.
 
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.

He wasn't stealing from the employees. He was stealing from the store.

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. 😀
 
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.

He wasn't stealing from the employees. He was stealing from the store.

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. 😀

I wish CA's penal code looked something like that 🙂
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Triumph
How exactly did this guy die?

Portz said one of the Wal-Mart employees had Driver in a choke hold as other employees pinned his body to the ground.

"He was begging, 'Please, I'm burning, let me up,' " Portz said of Driver. "He'd push himself up off the blacktop, like he was doing a push-up.

"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."
========================================================
Bolded lines is how he died.

Pressure on Neck and back, throat closed and ribs could not move.

He died of aphixiation (Not enough Air for 4 minutes to the brain)

Bouncers killed an Atlanta College kid this past January in front of Club Razzoo the same way.

January 4, 2005: NAACP Calls For Federal Probe Of Bourbon Street Death

More on "positional asphyxiation.":

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.
 
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.

He wasn't stealing from the employees. He was stealing from the store.

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. 😀

You forgot to highlight the "nighttime" parts.

 
Originally posted by: FleshLight

snip

I wish CA's penal code looked something like that 🙂

California is full of liberals, who protect the criminals and punish the victims, so don't hold your breath. The law that allows use of deadly force to protect property here in Texas has been on the books about 15 years and has been tested and tested and the property owners always win. Makes a criminal think twice. The concealed carry law has had a nice impact also.

 
Originally posted by: dainthomas
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.

He wasn't stealing from the employees. He was stealing from the store.

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. 😀

You forgot to highlight the "nighttime" parts.

You forgot to read the OR parts.
 
Unfortunate accident. It does sound like they were following a standard tactic used on criminals.

But the thief made his choices and now has to deal with the consequences.
 
Back
Top