Justice, Wal-Mart style

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH
Humble Pie's point is irrelevant in any case. Even if you could legally shoot someone to stop them from shoplifting, it doesn't say you are allowed to stop them from shoplifting, handcuff them, and once you've already stopped them from shoplifting, go ahead and step on their neck, pin them to the burning asphalt, and then refuse medical treatment while you let them die. It doesn't help their case that a crowd of bystanders was warning them that they were killing the guy and they still wouldn't let him up.

That's going to bring charges of manslaughter:

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent....

The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.

Do they execute you for manslaughter in Texas?

Finally, someone who gets it. They have no legal right to use deadly force after he is already detained and subdued.

The Walmart employees should be charged with manslaughter, and I hope Walmart gets sued for a very large sum of money.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: kinev

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: shuan24

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.

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.

Hold on there. I'd like to join in the owning of HumblePie, but I don't understand the connection. If shoplifting = theft, and theft = burglary, then doesn't shoplifting = burglary? (under Sec. 30.02. (a)(3))

theft is not = burglary.

oh and in general: post hoc ergo propter hoc. learn it.

Quite a discussion. No, theft |= burglary. If this goes to a criminal trial, you can bet that the defendant's lawyer will argue either
1) Does he have the owners 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.
-or-
2)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.

Again, I am not sure if this applies to employees at a business or not, but it does apply to private citizens. Also, there are a lot of unkowns here, but Texas tends to side against the criminals.

If this guy really didn't steal anything, then I feel sorry for his family's loss. If he did, one thing is for sure, he will not steal anything else from anybody.

Wrong. There is no deadly force justification after he is already detained and subdued. If 5 guys can't detain one man in handcuffs without killing him, I think there is a problem. Although he's big, I highly doubt he's going to be much of a problem as long as they have him on his back or on his ass.

Simply put, these people committed manslaughter.

 

[amdforever2]

If only they could sue Walmart for billions in the more liberal federal courts, instead of the mere tens of millions in the Texas courts.

 

[aeroguy]

Originally posted by: So
Well, the people who held him to the ground should definitely be tried for murder.

Manslaughter maybe. The employees had no intent (I hope) of killing him. They saw him as a criminal and didn't believe him when he said he couldn't breathe. I don't think they should serve 20 years in jail for it. It was a terrible accident, and I would bet that the family would be happy with a very large cash settlement from Walmart.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: kinev

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: shuan24

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.

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.

Hold on there. I'd like to join in the owning of HumblePie, but I don't understand the connection. If shoplifting = theft, and theft = burglary, then doesn't shoplifting = burglary? (under Sec. 30.02. (a)(3))

theft is not = burglary.

oh and in general: post hoc ergo propter hoc. learn it.

Quite a discussion. No, theft |= burglary. If this goes to a criminal trial, you can bet that the defendant's lawyer will argue either
1) Does he have the owners 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.
-or-
2)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.

Again, I am not sure if this applies to employees at a business or not, but it does apply to private citizens. Also, there are a lot of unkowns here, but Texas tends to side against the criminals.

If this guy really didn't steal anything, then I feel sorry for his family's loss. If he did, one thing is for sure, he will not steal anything else from anybody.

you are wrong.

you have been proved wrong. in fact its pretty much beat into the ground.just be a man and admit you are wrong. continuing to say you are Right just makes you look the bigger fool.


Once in custody you do not have the right to execute them. they had him in control at that point restraint must be used. They did not.

They sat with a knee in his back and REFUSED to call 911. At some point it has to go past self defense of property to manslaughter. these people definitely crossed that line.

 

I hope thoes employees get sued, send to jail and tortured.

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: waggy

you are wrong.

you have been proved wrong. in fact its pretty much beat into the ground.just be a man and admit you are wrong. continuing to say you are Right just makes you look the bigger fool.


Once in custody you do not have the right to execute them. they had him in control at that point restraint must be used. They did not.

They sat with a knee in his back and REFUSED to call 911. At some point it has to go past self defense of property to manslaughter. these people definitely crossed that line.

Please explain exactly how I am wrong then. They never had him in "custody". Police take you into custody. Citizens stop you from stealing your stuff. Here in Texas (note this isn't Illinois) you are allowed to use deadly force to achieve this end. There is no time stipulation under the deadly force provision. In fact, it states that you can use deadly force to protect yourself or others from injury. If the guy was struggling, they were protecting themselves from serious bodily injury. I illustrated how these guys can claim that they were operating under sections 9.42, 30.02, and possibly 29.02 of the Texas penal code.

Also, one has to look at the intent of the people stopping the criminal. Were they trying to kill him? Most likely not, but they did. In Texas, you can legally, knowingly kill someone who is stealing your property under the deadly force provision. If you can intentionally kill someone to protect property, why is it so hard to say that you can unintentionally kill someone to protect property?

Did they go too far. Probably. None of us were there so none of us has the whole story. Neither you nor I will be on a potential jury that will decide if these guys will face criminal charges, but as I said earlier, Texas juries tend to side against criminals. You can bet that if these guys do get slapped with criminal charges, their lawyers will argue these points.

The fact that he's big and that it took 5 guys to detain him may actually help their case. If he was struggling to get up or making any aggressive moves toward the guys who were stopping him, as I said, only one of the guys had to fear bodily harm and then it's upped to a robbery and still under the deadly force provision. The fact that his shirt was ripped off indicates a struggle. The fact that there was a struggle suggests that he was resisting. The fact that he was resisting suggests that one of the guys stopping him could have feared imminent bodily injury. If just one of them did then he committed a robbery. Still, this is all based off of 3rd hand information, so all of this may be moot.

The handcuff thing is strange, though. They might get in trouble for using them. I'm not sure. I don't think that Walmart employees are issued a set of cuffs at the beginning of a shift. Maybe they had an off duty cop working there or assisting. That might help or it might hurt. There is still too much that we don't know.

Not to belabor a point, but keep in mind, this is Texas. The judges, juries, and people here do NOT side with criminals very often. Texas is a conservative state that doesn't worry if this guy had a rough childhood or if he didn't receive his government aide that month. He broke the law (allegedly, but if he didn't steal anything, that's a whole other story) and got caught. There is precedent set that you can use deadly force to protect your property. The fact that this is getting media attention may hurt the employees, though. If this story had not been picked up by the media, then I'm almost positive these guys would not face criminal charges. They'll still get sued civilly no matter what, but the question at hand is criminal charges.

 

[Hammer]

kinev, seriously stop, you don't have an understanding on the law in general, much less texas.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Hammer
kinev, seriously stop, you don't have an understanding on the law in general, much less texas.

I agree.

And I work in Crim. Justice, programming

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Hammer
kinev, seriously stop, you don't have an understanding on the law in general, much less texas.

 

[Excelsior]

Does anyone really expect any better from Wal-Mart employees?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: lokiju

Driver lived in Cleveland, where his parents own a small business, Lindeman said. Driver was a master carpenter with a 2-month-old son and was about halfway through taking flying courses to get his pilot's license, Lindeman said.

Why on earth would you steal if you can afford to take flying classes?

Darwin wins!


Edit: after reading the rest of that I do think Wal-Mart employees went to far, they didn't need to pin him down like that and the guy putting his knee in the guys neck was a but much IMO.

perhaps he was stealing to be able to afford them.

not right either way, but not a big stretch to understand.

 

[OutHouse]

Also, one has to look at the intent of the people stopping the criminal. Were they trying to kill him? Most likely not, but they did. In Texas, you can legally, knowingly kill someone who is stealing your property under the deadly force provision. If you can intentionally kill someone to protect property, why is it so hard to say that you can unintentionally kill someone to protect property?

See the thing is the property the guy might or might not have SHOPLIFTED was not the employees property, it belonged to Wal-Mart. That crap you are misreading is for PERSONAL Property.

No law even Texas law allows for employees to kill shoplifters. how is this, you and your wife or girlfirend walk out of a K-mart, Kroger or even Wal-Mart and some punk ass want to be rent a cop thinks your wife or girlfreind shoplifted. according to you they have every right to shoot her. dude think about that, if you dont understand how you are wrong give it up and stop posting until you contact a criminal lawyer in Texas and run your logic by them.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Also, one has to look at the intent of the people stopping the criminal. Were they trying to kill him? Most likely not, but they did. In Texas, you can legally, knowingly kill someone who is stealing your property under the deadly force provision. If you can intentionally kill someone to protect property, why is it so hard to say that you can unintentionally kill someone to protect property?

See the thing is the property the guy might or might not have SHOPLIFTED was not the employees property, it belonged to Wal-Mart. That crap you are misreading is for PERSONAL Property.

No law even Texas law allows for employees to kill shoplifters. how is this, you and your wife or girlfirend walk out of a K-mart, Kroger or even Wal-Mart and some punk ass want to be rent a cop thinks your wife or girlfreind shoplifted. according to you they have every right to shoot her. dude think about that, if you dont understand how you are wrong give it up and stop posting until you contact a criminal lawyer in Texas and run your logic by them.

exactly, problem is most of these online-cowboys would cower and pretend not to notice when Bubba shoves $100 in CD's down his pants right in front of them. Then the next day talk about how if they witnessed it they would have shot him or beat him.

 

[vi edit]

I'd be curious to know the results of the autopsy/toxicology reports.

 

[g8wayrebel]

I am replying to this post due to your ommission of fact(Walmarts responsibility for it's employees actions).
The cop probably gave them the handcuffs. The guy had fought free several times , so keepimg him down would be reasonable , and thinking "I can't breathe" is an excuse to get them off him so he can attempt to get away again is also reasonable. It may be excessive , it may not. I wasn't there , so who can say.
In any case , in a civil litigation , the employees were representative of the store.
No matter the policy , in most cases a jury will hold the company accountable for actual and punitive damages just because they feel the corporation has the money and the victims family deserves to be paid.
If the autopsy reveals that the person kneeling on his neck caused his death , he will probably be prosecuted. If not , no one will , but Walmart will still lose mega bucks over it because they are responsible for the employees representing the store.
This is just an opinion

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Also, one has to look at the intent of the people stopping the criminal. Were they trying to kill him? Most likely not, but they did. In Texas, you can legally, knowingly kill someone who is stealing your property under the deadly force provision. If you can intentionally kill someone to protect property, why is it so hard to say that you can unintentionally kill someone to protect property?

See the thing is the property the guy might or might not have SHOPLIFTED was not the employees property, it belonged to Wal-Mart. That crap you are misreading is for PERSONAL Property.

No law even Texas law allows for employees to kill shoplifters. how is this, you and your wife or girlfirend walk out of a K-mart, Kroger or even Wal-Mart and some punk ass want to be rent a cop thinks your wife or girlfreind shoplifted. according to you they have every right to shoot her. dude think about that, if you dont understand how you are wrong give it up and stop posting until you contact a criminal lawyer in Texas and run your logic by them.

I agree, I don't know if it applies to employees/businesses or not which is why my first post in this thread was:

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.

I am thinking under the assumption that it's the same, but it could very well be different. If WalMart can be sued civilly for the actions of these employees, then they are agents/representing WalMart. If they are agents/representing WalMart, they should be able to defend WalMart's property from being stolen. Part of the legal defense of property in Texas includes the use of lethal force. I doubt one of the Waltons themselves would have to be the one who physically stops someone from stealing from WalMart. That's what employees/agents are for.

If my girlfriend did steal something and the following was true:
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.

then yes, under Texas law, the wanna-be rent 'a cop could shoot her if this applies to employees as well as private citizens. But, as I have said, he (or anybody) better be dang sure that a crime was committed.

Make your hypothetical siutation a case where my girlfriend is stealing from the wanna-be rent-a-cop personally and the above are true, it is in black and white Texas law that the rent-a-cop could kill her.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but could you point out exactly what you think I am wrong about? I guess I'm just not seeing it.

 

[cliftonite]

crazy story

 

[Gamingphreek]

Since when does a retail store have any type of jurisdiction.

Last i checked, you aren't allowed to touch a person unless you feel your or other peoples lives are at stake.

Those employees had no right to do any of that, they should be fired and sued. Stealing or not stealing, the employees are not allowed to react in the way they did.

Even though he is in Texas, im sure Wal-Marts company policy doesn't say run and tackle a person if he is stealing.

-Kevin

 

[deadken]

Wow, that reads as an INSANE story. I hope somes posts a follow-up after the autopsy. I would be interested in seeing what ends up happening.

 

[TexDotCom]

Originally posted by: amdskip
I'd like to know where the handcuffs came from. If the cops handcuffed him then wouldn't they get in trouble too for not letting him up? I really don't think walmart would handcuff him.

They got them in the toy aisle, of course.

 

[Rapidskies]

Here are some basic facts as alot of people are stating misinformation and wondering where the handcuffs came from.

A company can protect their goods by detaining shoplifters for police. They have a loss control staff that confront the shoplifters. The loss control people carry hand-cuffs and can chase people down and hand cuff them if need be. This is all within the law. When loss control makes a stop and it gets confrontational they usually have a code that lets other employees know to come outside and help restrain the suspect. This is within the law as well.

What happened in this instance I have no idea as I wasn't there. A huge factor is if he was shoplifting or not. If he wasn't and he was restrained and died then they are in a world of hurt. A second factor is were they abusing the suspect once restrained. If they were, then again they could be held liable for his death. A couple of different versions of what happened have been posted so depending on what is the truth the company and employee could be facing criminal and civil charges, civil charges only, or they could be innocent of any wrong doing.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Rapidskies
Here are some basic facts as alot of people are stating misinformation and wondering where the handcuffs came from.

A company can protect their goods by detaining shoplifters for police. They have a loss control staff that confront the shoplifters. The loss control people carry hand-cuffs and can chase people down and hand cuff them if need be. This is all within the law. When loss control makes a stop and it gets confrontational they usually have a code that lets other employees know to come outside and help restrain the suspect. This is within the law as well.

What happened in this instance I have no idea as I wasn't there. A huge factor is if he was shoplifting or not. If he wasn't and he was restrained and died then they are in a world of hurt. A second factor is were they abusing the suspect once restrained. If they were, then again they could be held liable for his death. A couple of different versions of what happened have been posted so depending on what is the truth the company and employee could be facing criminal and civil charges, civil charges only, or they could be innocent of any wrong doing.

not to mention some people carry cuffs, a taser, mace, sidearm, club in their car...just waiting to unleash their fury.

I often thought about getting one of those BBQ knifes on a long stick, a bloodied chef hat and smock and carry those in my car. Nothing is going to say loving more than donning a blood soaked outfit and carrying a knife on a stick over to Mr. Roadrage at the next red light.

 

[amdhunter]

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.

In NY it is, even a security guard cannot stop you. The most they can do is ask your permission to be held.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: amdhunter

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.

In NY it is, even a security guard cannot stop you. The most they can do is ask your permission to be held.

IN MOST STATES, no matter what your title or what the 'boss' told you (despite Rapidskye's take on his own local laws), if you are NOT carrying a license for security....don't touch anyone even if they are carting off a TV, sectional, and microwave.

You kill someone you will be the criminal. I don't agree with it, but bleeding hearts make a lot of laws.