Originally posted by: Ronstang
I have no sympathy for the ills that befall a thief as they are the scum of the earth.
You are no better
Originally posted by: Ronstang
I have no sympathy for the ills that befall a thief as they are the scum of the earth.
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
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?Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ilmater
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.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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Ronstang
I have no sympathy for the ills that befall a thief as they are the scum of the earth.
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
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
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?Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Ilmater
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.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.
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.
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: Triumph
How exactly did this guy die?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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. 😀
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
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. 😀
Originally posted by: FleshLight
snip
I wish CA's penal code looked something like that 🙂
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.