Shoplifter killed by Walmart employees.

[buckshot24]

So what you are doing is jumping to a conclusion that is not stated in the article.....
There are many ways a person can die......where in the article does it say these employees killed the customer....you can`t....so you act like a immature Jr high schooler and claim with no proof...no proof.....no proof that they killed the customer....

Sure I am. To be fair though I didn't say the shoplifter was an alleged one either. So maybe he didn't steal anything and maybe the employees weren't on top of him when he died.

What was reported in the article is NOT proof that they killed the customer.
In fact those employees will not be charged with murder without proof....proof please...............

It doesn't have to be murder for them to have killed him.

You're right though I'm only making a logical conclusion with what is presented. Maybe they didn't kill him.

 

[blankslate]

Do you think that the vast majority of people would be claiming that the old man should have just "written off" his loses?

You're not trolling you say?

I think people would have wondered about someone shooting a someone else who was stealing 2 dvd players on their porch. Questions would have to be answered. Was the thief running or using the DVD player(s) as a weapon and charging the old man.

Besides the thief wasn't shot, and may have been the victim of a poorly applied chokehold.

As for me if I was in your largely unrelated scenario... If the thief wasn't trying to use the DVD players as lethal weapons against me and ran... I'd skip blasting him over DVD players.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I will have to say that anyone thinking walmart is going to be paying anything is naive to say the least.

First off, it has to be proven they were acting under direction from walmart. Second, it has to proven his cause of death was directly related to the actions of the walmart employees. That is assuming the man isn't in a state where his commission of a felony doesn't allow people to use any force needed to protect their property.

Are you familiar with a legal doctrine called "respondeat superior"? Who exactly was the employer for the Walmart employees and the "security officer"? If the security officer was an independent contractor or employed by an independent contractor, could Walmart face liability for negligence in hiring that contractor?

 

[dabuddha]

Guess that guy won't be stealing again.

 

[nehalem256]

You're not trolling you say?

I think people would have wondered about someone shooting a someone else who was stealing 2 dvd players on their porch. Questions would have to be answered. Was the thief running or using the DVD player(s) as a weapon and charging the old man.

Besides the thief wasn't shot, and may have been the victim of a poorly applied chokehold.

As for me if I was in your largely unrelated scenario... If the thief wasn't trying to use the DVD players as lethal weapons against me and ran... I'd skip blasting him over DVD players.

Corporations are people my friend.

You were the one who decided to repeat Romney's tired line. I was simply responding to it by asking what would people's response be if an actual person killed someone who was robbing him.

 

[HumblePie]

Are you familiar with a legal doctrine called "respondeat superior"? Who exactly was the employer for the Walmart employees and the "security officer"? If the security officer was an independent contractor or employed by an independent contractor, could Walmart face liability for negligence in hiring that contractor?

I am aware, but I am also aware of how hard it is to apply because of this caveat.

"the act must be committed within the scope of employment (i.e., substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's business)."

Meaning, those employee's job description and intent for their jobs is to detain shoplifters. If it is not, then that clause doesn't apply.

 

[Nintendesert]

I'm not sure what the fuck is wrong with this country and world when we're killing thieves now instead of simply chopping their hands off.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm not sure what the fuck is wrong with this country and world when we're killing thieves now instead of simply chopping their hands off.

Again, who knows how the man died. It could have been in his haste to escape he went into cardiac arrest and no one noticed. Which means his death is on his hands for putting himself in a strenuous situation. Until we know the cause of death, there can't be any pointing of fingers.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Again, who knows how the man died. It could have been in his haste to escape he went into cardiac arrest and no one noticed. Which means his death is on his hands for putting himself in a strenuous situation. Until we know the cause of death, there can't be any pointing of fingers.

Yeah, you're right, I'm sure it had nothing to do with being put in a chokehold as was reported or anything.

 

[GoPackGo]

I am aware, but I am also aware of how hard it is to apply because of this caveat.

"the act must be committed within the scope of employment (i.e., substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's business)."

Meaning, those employee's job description and intent for their jobs is to detain shoplifters. If it is not, then that clause doesn't apply.

most descriptions, especially at that low level include something like: "additional duties as assigned"

 

[Jaskalas]

Yeah, you're right, I'm sure it had nothing to do with being put in a chokehold as was reported or anything.

Speaking of which...

1993: Final Suit Over LAPD's Use of Chokehold Settled

James Mincey Jr.'s death was the 16th over seven years that was attributed to the chokehold, and it led to the Los Angeles Police Commission's virtual ban on the use of the tactic.

LAPD was killing too many people so they had to ban the use of chokeholds.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Speaking of which...

1993: Final Suit Over LAPD's Use of Chokehold Settled
LAPD was killing too many people so they had to ban the use of chokeholds.

And people wonder why MMA refs constantly check guys who are caught in a submission....

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Placing your weight on the torso of the person you are restraining has in multiple instances killed the person. The reason is compression of the ribcage over an extended period of time, this is more common when the person is physically exhausted and you pull his arms back at the same time. Once subdued and properly restrained you get off of the person, it should take no more than 30 seconds to a minute, it starts becoming really dangerous when it's more than 5 minutes simply because the muscles eventually become exhausted from breathing under compression.

Here we have three people sitting on the man for 15-20 minutes, there is no need for a choke hold to do any damage, this would have done enough damage.

 

[buckshot24]

Again, who knows how the man died. It could have been in his haste to escape he went into cardiac arrest and no one noticed. Which means his death is on his hands for putting himself in a strenuous situation. Until we know the cause of death, there can't be any pointing of fingers.

You're right. He could have died from a heart attack. However it just seems that the choke hold and 3 guys on top of him may be the better explanation.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You're right. He could have died from a heart attack. However it just seems that the choke hold and 3 guys on top of him may be the better explanation.

Finally.........took you long enough...

 

[UberNeuman]

I went to Walmart today and the special was Artie Chokes Three For a Dollar...

 

[buckshot24]

I went to Walmart today and the special was Artie Chokes Three For a Dollar...

You should be put in a choke hold for that cheese nuke you just dropped.

 

[OutHouse]

You're right. He could have died from a heart attack. However it just seems that the choke hold and 3 guys on top of him may be the better explanation.

Don't forget bleeding from nose and mouth

 

[blankslate]

You were the one who decided to repeat Romney's tired line. I was simply responding to it by asking what would people's response be if an actual person killed someone who was robbing him.

I answered your stupid question, from a cluelessly unrelated example (since no firearms were involved in the walmart case). Didn't I?

Holy Fillet of Fuck! How many times did the doctor drop you on your head?

 

[RU482]

this is some crazy shit. on one hand, a guy got literally busted for stealing. On the other hand, if this becomes common place, society eventually becomes hypersensitive and the social norm evolves into choking a biatch to death because she cut in line.

/people need to chill the fug out