Justice, Wal-Mart style

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: kinev

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.

i posted it above, but what this guy did is petty theft. a misdemeanor. it's not burglary because he had consent to be in the store. if he had stolen over $500 dollars it would be grand theft.

 

[Stuxnet]

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.

Au contraire... because they were employees of Wal Mart, it is a BIG issue for Wal Mart. It will be very difficult for Wal Mart to separate and distance themselves from this incident. Store policy with regard to shoplifting will play a huge part in how the legal system views Wal Mart's role in this. If employees are instructed to aggressively chase down shoplifters (especially without proper training), then this guy's family is going to be rich.

You can certainly bet, though, that the employees who ignored his pleas and played a direct role in his death will face criminal charges.

 

[mercanucaribe]

To all the posters saying he deserved it, or that he deserved no sympathy because he was a thief.. Have you ever pirated an mp3?

 

[kinev]

<sigh> I thought I spelled it out clearly enough.
1.Can use deadly force if justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 CHECK

2.When and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.....to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary AND the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means. CHECK

3.Burglary is defined as a person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft. CHECK

Again, notice the OR's. Also the nighttime scenario is only applicable to the lesser crime of theft. This guy was committing burglary. See????

You posted misinformation. Read the TEXAS PENAL CODE that I posted. It's right there.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: kinev
<sigh> I thought I spelled it out clearly enough.
1.Can use deadly force if justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 CHECK

2.When and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.....to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary AND the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means. CHECK

3.Burglary is defined as a person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft. CHECK

Again, notice the OR's. Also the nighttime scenario is only applicable to the lesser crime of theft. This guy was committing burglary. See????

You posted misinformation. Read the TEXAS PENAL CODE that I posted. It's right there.

yes, you posted it. obviously you don't understand it. do you know what the LEGAL definition of burglary is?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
To all the posters saying he deserved it, or that he deserved no sympathy because he was a thief.. Have you ever pirated an mp3?

That is copyright infringement, not theft.

 

[Xyclone]

Wow, if anyone's thinking about shoplifting from Walmart..... :roll:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

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.

Au contraire... because they were employees of Wal Mart, it is a BIG issue for Wal Mart. It will be very difficult for Wal Mart to separate and distance themselves from this incident. Store policy with regard to shoplifting will play a huge part in how the legal system views Wal Mart's role in this. If employees are instructed to aggressively chase down shoplifters (especially without proper training), then this guy's family is going to be rich.

You can certainly bet, though, that the employees who ignored his pleas and played a direct role in his death will face criminal charges.

Oh im not saying wal mart will not/should not be held liable.

What im saying is while wal mart may have contributed to this by not makeing sure the security was trained properly. Wal mart is not directly responsible for the death. This was casued becasue some wanna be cop had to show everyone watching just how taugh he was. He was showing that he can play hardball with thiefs.

but in the end it will be wal mart paying. hopefully the ones who killed the guy go to prison.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
To all the posters saying he deserved it, or that he deserved no sympathy because he was a thief.. Have you ever pirated an mp3?

That is copyright infringement, not theft.

Copyright infringement is theft.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: kinev
<sigh> I thought I spelled it out clearly enough.
1.Can use deadly force if justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 CHECK

2.When and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.....to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary AND the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means. CHECK

3.Burglary is defined as a person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft. CHECK

Again, notice the OR's. Also the nighttime scenario is only applicable to the lesser crime of theft. This guy was committing burglary. See????

You posted misinformation. Read the TEXAS PENAL CODE that I posted. It's right there.

but you also do not have the right to execute them either. That is what this was. they had the guy in cuffs on the ground. he was saying he could not breath yet they refused to call 911 or even get off of him.

But also you darn well better make sure the person is doing what you claim they are. Because in this case it looks like n OT only did the "security" guards kill someone they may have killed a innocent man.

 

[kinev]

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.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: kinev
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.

part of the problem is they are not even sure if he did commit the thieft.

 

[Amplifier]

Guess what, no one here knows the whole story!

They tried to keep him inside but he was cussing and too dangerous to have inside a store. When he was outside he tried several times to escape making any excuse to get them to loosen their grip (even faked fainting). And after the 5th pile of BS the employees just ignored him and waited for the police officier who was twenty minutes late. [/Amp's Version]

That would never be reported because it's not sensationalist news. So don't just jump on WalMart until all the facts are known.

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: kinev
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.

part of the problem is they are not even sure if he did commit the thieft.

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.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
To all the posters saying he deserved it, or that he deserved no sympathy because he was a thief.. Have you ever pirated an mp3?

That is copyright infringement, not theft.

Copyright infringement is theft.

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is often referred to as piracy or theft (an early reference was made by Alfred Tennyson in the preface to his poem 'The Lover's Tale' in 1879 where he mentions that sections of this work "have of late been mercilessly pirated".) However there is no legal basis for this and indeed in one US copyright lawsuit the judge ordered the plaintiff's legal team to stop using the term.

Copyright Infringement

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: kinev
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.

LOL. how old are you kid?

you obviously don't understand what burglary is. i'll try and make it simple for you:

petty theft - i invite you over to my house and when you leave i notice you stole a fork.
grand theft - i invite you over to my house and when you leave i notice you stole my TV. (over $500)
burglary - you jump the fence and let yourself into my house while i'm away and steal a fork OR a tv (doesn't matter)

get it?

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: kinev
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.

part of the problem is they are not even sure if he did commit the thieft.

I will keep an eye out in the news here and check with local people in the know but there are some suspicious things that lead me to believe that he was guilty.

First, he ran away from the employees. Innocent people do not run, they simply have nothing to gain. This isn't Cold War Russia or Nazi Germany where being innocent meant nothing.

Second, he lived in Cleveland. It is a small town about 25 miles north of here. They have a huge Super Walmart. Why was he not shopping there? Shoplifters tend to avoid stores in their neighborhood where they might be recognized. It is also possible he had tried stuff in the Cleveland store in the past and was being watched. Many stores identify shoplifters and watch them when in the store.

Finally, employyes would have to have some pretty good evidence to justify chasing a suspect down into the parking lot. I'm not saying people don't make mistakes but this just doesn't sound like one to me.

We will just have to wait and see what the fact bear. No one here knows for certain.

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: kinev
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.

LOL. how old are you kid?

you obviously don't understand what burglary is. i'll try and make it simple for you:

petty theft - i invite you over to my house and when you leave i notice you stole a fork.
grand theft - i invite you over to my house and when you leave i notice you stole my TV. (over $500)
burglary - you jump the fence and let yourself into my house while i'm away and steal a fork OR a tv (doesn't matter)

get it?

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.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: kinev
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.

part of the problem is they are not even sure if he did commit the thieft.

I will keep an eye out in the news here and check with local people in the know but there are some suspicious things that lead me to believe that he was guilty.

First, he ran away from the employees. Innocent people do not run, they simply have nothing to gain. This isn't Cold War Russia or Nazi Germany where being innocent meant nothing.

Second, he lived in Cleveland. It is a small town about 25 miles north of here. They have a huge Super Walmart. Why was he not shopping there? Shoplifters tend to avoid stores in their neighborhood where they might be recognized. It is also possible he had tried stuff in the Cleveland store in the past and was being watched. Many stores identify shoplifters and watch them when in the store.

Finally, employyes would have to have some pretty good evidence to justify chasing a suspect down into the parking lot. I'm not saying people don't make mistakes but this just doesn't sound like one to me.

We will just have to wait and see what the fact bear. No one here knows for certain.

well to be honest when security tells me to stop i never do either. if they want to check my bags they better detain me. only place i stop to let them check my bags is Sams club because it is in the terms of use to get a card.

When they tail me to stop i just keep walking. I know i have not stolen anything so screw them.

but not sure if this guy did it. yes there is a LOT of people saying he did try to shoplift. I'm not really debating that.

What im argueing about is did Walmart have the right to use lethal force? not when he was in cuffs and saying he could not breath.

I think wal mart is going to lose this case.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: kinev

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: kinev
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.

LOL. how old are you kid?

you obviously don't understand what burglary is. i'll try and make it simple for you:

petty theft - i invite you over to my house and when you leave i notice you stole a fork.
grand theft - i invite you over to my house and when you leave i notice you stole my TV. (over $500)
burglary - you jump the fence and let yourself into my house while i'm away and steal a fork OR a tv (doesn't matter)

get it?

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.

i'm not going to waste my time. you obviously don't have the capacity for understanding the code. :laugh:

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: Hammer

snip

i'm not going to waste my time. you obviously don't have the capacity for understanding the code. :laugh:

Discretion is the better part of valor.

 

[RollWave]

thats sickening.

 

[Fraggable]

Even if he did steal it intentionally, the employees were wrong. I don't care if he did yell and scream in the store, they should have let him go once he got in the parking lot. You aren't allowed to tackle a customer (even a non-paying one) in the parking lot of your employer for stealing, and certainly not to kill him. Think about it. How many witnesses were there that could have gotten his license # and full description? I would hope that by the time he was out the door a manager would have been involved and could have gotten all the info he needed. Hell, if they were able to get him on the ground they could have gotten his wallet and had all the ID they'd ever need.

Worst case scenario: The guy gets away with $50 worth of merchandise. Apparently Wal-Mart thought it would be better to kill him than let that happen. Yes it was just a few employees, but Wal-Mart as a whole takes the responsibility for not training like it should.

 

[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.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Isn't it illegal for people that work in stores to actually handcuff and hold a shoplifter? I know in the past when I worked retail, we could try to get the guy to drop the items or trap him in the store, but if we had tackled someone and handcuffed them and sat on them in the parking lot, that'd be a huge problem for assault, reckless endangerment, etc since retail people (especially WalMart) are not police officers.

I don't understand why the Sheriffs dept hasn't filed charges yet. The Walmart employee's broke the law by handcuffing the man. They have no legal right to detain shoplifters. And they most certainly violated company policy by chasing someone out of the store. Walmart and the employees that did this will get sued, and the employees will definatly lose their jobs.