Justice, Wal-Mart style

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Does anyone really expect any better from Wal-Mart employees?

Really, they are paid so well and highly trained.

 

[Al Neri]

unreal

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: werk
Stupidity all around in this case.

i still feel bad for him

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
For the life of me I can't figure out why $7.00/hr cashiers and shelf-stockers would want to act like police? To me, my life worth more then any crap shoplifter can carry.

I wonder this all the time about all policies. Why do Best Buy people try to shove a PSP on you when "they don't get commission?" Why do places give a hard time handling returns...

 

[Spencer278]

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.

Ignoring everything else wrong with your argument.
Does he have the owners permission to enter WalMart? Yes. ok that part you got right. Once he commits a theft, does he have permission? No. Here is your error. No one told the person to leave nor was he given time to leave there for he still had permission to be in the store. If Mr. associate had asked the person to leave and then he stole another item then it would be burglary.

Besides if you read the reset of the code the stuff was already dropped when they applyed deadly force and so they had other means then applying deadly force to recover the goods.
Now please STFU.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: AnyMal
For the life of me I can't figure out why $7.00/hr cashiers and shelf-stockers would want to act like police? To me, my life worth more then any crap shoplifter can carry.

I wonder this all the time about all policies. Why do Best Buy people try to shove a PSP on you when "they don't get commission?" Why do places give a hard time handling returns...

Wal-mart policies is that only a manager or the loss prevention people can do anything. A regular employee can ask "If they inteded to purchase the item(s)"

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: AnyMal
For the life of me I can't figure out why $7.00/hr cashiers and shelf-stockers would want to act like police? To me, my life worth more then any crap shoplifter can carry.

I wonder this all the time about all policies. Why do Best Buy people try to shove a PSP on you when "they don't get commission?" Why do places give a hard time handling returns...

You both = the idiots.

If you take a job, follow the policies...if you don't agree don't take the job.

You do realize even if paid double digits people are idiots. I work for a large company, Fortune 500 and we are a big installation.

In the elevator: gum stuck everywhere, wrappers on the floor, empty cups.

At the various coffee machines: wet stirrers on the counter, sugar/sweet and low wrappers on the counter, spills, etc....there is a large trash can there within an arms reach.

my wife's job is retail...they have a very large store (largest single floor store)...no less than 20+ working at a time yet Friday someone managed to tie every long sleeved shirt's sleeves together in a double knot. She knows someone had witnessed this but whatever....

Then you have the service orientated people that insist they are too good to wait on people.

oh wait I didn't mean to speak badly about you two. As much as I hate most service plans, I respect those flipping them knowing they get fuxored comments all day.

 

[markgm]

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.

I don't understand how you guys are arguing this point. dainthomas has it right. None of this applies because of the nightime parts, which applies to ALL of the ORs.

For 9.42 you need 1, 2, and 3. To get 2 you need 2A or 2B, and for 3 you need 3A or 3B.

Presume 1 is true. 2A isn't, since the guy left the store. 2B isn't because it didn't happen at night.

"to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;"

That means:
to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary during the nighttime from escaping with the property

to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing robbery during the nighttime from escaping with the property

to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing aggravated robbery during the nighttime from escaping with the property

to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property


That's the value of the word or, it saves space.

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: markgm

I don't understand how you guys are arguing this point. dainthomas has it right. None of this applies because of the nightime parts, which applies to ALL of the ORs.

For 9.42 you need 1, 2, and 3. To get 2 you need 2A or 2B, and for 3 you need 3A or 3B.

Presume 1 is true. 2A isn't, since the guy left the store. 2B isn't because it didn't happen at night.

"to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;"

That means:
to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary during the nighttime from escaping with the property

to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing robbery during the nighttime from escaping with the property

to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing aggravated robbery during the nighttime from escaping with the property

to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property


That's the value of the word or, it saves space.

[Brian]
Swing and a miss
[/Brian]

 

[CDC Mail Guy]

I hope the Walmart employees fry, or at least go to prison for involuntary manslaughter. Christ, the guy only (allegedly) stole diapers and a BB gun. He did not hold up the store at gunpoint. He did wrong to be sure, but the US Government wouldn't even do that to Osama when (if) we catch him. The whole story sucks.

 

[newParadigm]

this is just fucking stupid. If walmart killed my dad i would go all vigilante justice on their ass.

~new

 

[Accipiter22]

um...in MA you can't touch someone once they exit the stores....and also if you bring stuff with you into the bathroom or dressing rooms you could walk out wearing it, and they can't do Ish to you