Suspected shoplifter dies after being detained at California Walmart

Are you suggesting that they INTENDED to kill the guy? If not, maybe you would want to rephrase the above comment because the impression it gives as stated, suggests that you believe they INTENDED to kill the guy.

This also sounds like you are saying that not only did the guards INTEND to kill the guy, but that Neverfly has said they should have. I have not seen where Neverfly said they SHOULD have killed the guy. Also you have stated this as a fact, I don't think you know Neverfly or anyone on this forum well enough to lay claim to what you know about them. So this is an unfair unwarranted character attack.

This is very valid. This is also relevant to the OP. There is good reason to question why they went against policy and attacked the guy. If that is what actually happened. Newspapers are notorious for sensationalizing and exaggerating actual events in order to sell papers.

this is a very rare but matter-of-fact report. Not many papers just state fact anymore. An innocent person does not usually resist when approached by guards. Now unless these guards attacked without telling who they were or why they were stopping him, I can't see why an innocent person would start fighting. The article does not give clear revelation as to how exactly they approached the guy. This should be questioned. Was it reasonable for him to perceive that he was being unjustly attacked? If not, then why would he resist?

I have been stopped by security at walmart because I had a big purse. I didn't like being stopped but I didn't start throwing punches either. I let them look in my purse and showed receipts for my purchases. Innocent people do not generally resist or run. The resisting gave them reasonable cause to try to stop him. I do not know if their method of stopping him was legal or company policy, but there is still no evidence that they intended to kill the guy. And it is not reasonable to assume that even rough detaining would kill someone under normal circumstances.

This is the question of the day.

I don't think Neverfly has ever suggested that the suspect should be denied medical care. I would challenge you to show where he said it.

He has only said the person who the suspect harmed should not be held responsible for any injury to the suspect, even if those injuries result in death.
EDIT: Actually, after rechecking, I don't think he even said this. It is just the impression I have gotten from what he has said so far.

Huh? Non Sequitur?

I didn't see anything in the report that said they had beaten him to the ground. It is quite common for police and security guards to be trained in how to subdue a suspect without beating. It often only takes a firm grip and the ability to take away their balance, by pinning an arm behind the back and sweeping a foot out from under them. I have been a security guard in the past and I know the training. I worked for Pinkerton. Now whether or not THESE particular guards were trained in such a way, we do not know. And that is one of the things that needs to be found out.

True and it does make you wonder how much time had passed from the moment they got him subdued to the time the police arrived. Had they had time to even assess his condition before the police arrived? Were the police called ahead of his actual detainment? Were the guards under any assumptions that the paramedics were already on the way? This article simply is not telling the whole story. It is giving just enough to feed into the kneejerk angry reactions people so readily give when they have only a few details and a wild imagination. I would hate to see anyone on this thread on a jury. Willing to pass judgement without knowing the facts... its a sad state we are living in.

Again, this really is THE question.

and the guards are not proven to be murders. so why treat them as such. are you doing the same thing [you believe]the guards did?----edit "you believe" added for clarity.

Are we the judge and jury of the guards? Innocent until proven guilty. Remember?

I have forgotten to pay for something before. If you stop when they ask you to stop, they don't tackle. If it was a simple oversight, why didn't the guy just stop and address it? I stopped and not only did I not get tackled, they took my word for it that it was an accident and allowed me to go in and pay. I had missed a package of toilet paper on the bottom of my cart but paid for everything else.

We don't know how they were actually trained. Walmart is good at covering their ass. And if they can put all the heat on the individual guards they will. Besides, if you PROPERLY detain someone, there is no reason to assume one would die from it. IF they did things properly, the only reason he would have died is if there is some per-existing condition that contributed to it. The guards cannot be held responsible for what they could not have known.

So the questions are, Did they detain him properly and legally? What actually caused him to die? Did they violate company policy? Was the company policy clearly taught to the guards in question?

This is based on a lot of assumptions. Do we know how long there was between detaining and the time the police arrived? The article leaves you to believe the police arrived around the same time they had just got him restrained. Poor reporting if you ask me when they leave important details. They may have assumed the paramedics would arrive with the police. Anytime I have called the police and reported an altercation, both the police and the paramedics arrive. It is usually up to the 911 operator who gets dispatched.

I have had to call the police on my own son who was 15 at the time and less than 110 lbs. He was so riled up that it took 4 very large police officers to wrestle him to the floor. He was not harmed in anyway. 3 against 1 does not guarantee a beat down if the 3 were following proper training in how to subdue a suspect.

You seem to be suggesting that not only did the guards intend to kill the man or at least inflict enough injury on him that he could die, but that they intended to deny him medical care virtually guaranteeing it. On top of that you are extending that horrible character attack to a forum member who has never once said the guy should have been left to die. He has only suggested the guards should not be held responsible for his death and that he has no sympathy for the suspect if in fact he was guilty. If someone does something stupid that gets themselves killed, how can I feel sympathy for them. Should I feel sympathy for a burn victim if they voluntarily stuck their arm in fire? Should I feel sympathy for a drunk driver who gets himself killed when he wraps his truck around a tree? Should I feel sympathy for a man who gets mauled by a bear when he knowingly and willingly walks in the bears den and starts poking it?

Not having sympathy does not mean that the one without sympathy feels the victim of his own stupidity shouldn't get medical care. You don't need sympathy to offer medical care to the stupid. It only means we don't feel sad for them.

and at this time we do not know the exact reason for the medical distress or how long the guards had from the moment the suspect was subdued to the moment the police arrived. Details are needed before any reasonable judgement can be made. Too many assumptions are being made at this time and too many hasty conclusions are being reached. And we are tearing each others eyes out over stuff we know little about.

You are allowing your feelings in another thread to affect your behavior in this one. Don't lose your cool, Bells. This is an unnecessary and unproductive personal attack and assertion about someone's character. Your opinion of him is not relevant to the OP.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For someone who is so personally insulting to other posters so often, you sure do complain a lot when you think others are making personal comments about you.

I'm talking to Neverfly, for the record.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This does not mean that they "inflicted the death penalty."

Zimmerman? You treated him in that thread as guilty until proven innocent.

Uhh... No, not really. You consider a few posts, literally a few, to be considerable time and effort?
Intellectual dishonesty, Bells...

He got caught. I mean, what do you want? A notarized confession?
And again- Zimmerman thread? Where was your "Innocent until proven guilty," then? In that case, you're all for guilty until proven innocent.

Absolutely.
Let's go there:
Examples of Bells exaggerating and putting words in peoples mouths:

That's not what happened.

Nope, never said, nor hinted at nor implied it. This is based on your faulty assumption and exaggeration that people denied him medical help. They held him til police- who were on the way- arrived. This is intellectual dishonesty. Would you like another third party review over that?

They did not go and inflict the death penalty. For all you know, he overexerted himself from attacking guards and went into cardiac arrest. You're assuming. YOU DON'T KNOW, BELLS.
I never said anything of the kind. That's Straw Man. Intellectual Dishonesty. Hyper- accusatory. It's just the tactics you use, It's very tiresome, Bells.

WRONG.
They restrained him until Police Arrived. He was ALIVE.
The police called paramedics.
He was still alive.
He was taken to hospital.
Still alive.
Died in hospital. Stop assuming.

I'm sure that will get them fired. But here's the deal

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. Assumptions, Bells.
You don't know that he gave them No Chance to leave the fight. You do not know.

It doesn't say "Beaten to the ground" now does it?

Well I was mistaken as to his authority.

But this guy in this case:
He actually WAS Violent. He actually DID strike first. And you STILL TAKE HIS SIDE.
Wow.

You don't know how criminals caught in the act are restrained, do you? You think once they are on the ground, you only need to ask them nicely to stay put?
And "Killed right off the bat?" Assumptions, over exaggeration and straw man.


At this point- Not enough story is out. Too many assumptions are being made. The most I've said is: I have little pity for the man. Bells, I won't get dragged into a flamewar with you. I Have stated my case. You can post again and flame some more- it seems you can't help yourself; doesn't mean I'm obligated to deal with your emotions.

 

Not true. He died in the hospital. Not on the scene.

If you don't agree with someone, you tell them to "can it"?

So because you don't like something he said, it automatically makes his argument invalid? How about telling why it is invalid? Rather than mocking him.

This statement that YOU keep re-posting clearly says that the police arrived at the same time that they successfully got him to the ground. If the police arrived at that moment, how could they have had time to assess his condition, let alone call paramedics?

Do you think beating is the only way to get someone to the ground? I wrestle my kids all the time and pin them. But they are never beaten in the process. Usually I am the only one with injury because I allow them to fight back harder than I fight them. I still win, but still they are allowed to fight back as long as they do not hit in the face and do not bite. But I still get them down, even my teenagers. Proper security training does teach you how to get a violent suspect to the ground without beating them. The question is whether or not they were properly trained to do so and if they followed that training. Also whether or not they followed company policy and whether or not they were properly trained and made aware of company policy. There is a possibility that the physical conflict was unavoidable, but since we don't know the details we really should not be speculating or assuming things.

Is it really appropriate to bring up issues that are supposed to be, according to moderator posts, settled? Especially since it is from another thread and a different situation?

Sometimes disengaging can be more dangerous. It could be that they were thinking of the safety of bystanders. If this guy was violent, they have to consider the possibility that he may attack other shoppers. If they did not detain the guy and he attacked other shoppers then we would be arguing that they did not do their job in protecting the other customers. They had to make a quick decision. The choices were ugly either way, they decided to protect the innocent over the violent suspect.

But then you don't seem to be allowing innocent until proven guilty for the guards.

They did not KILL him. They were participants in a situation that, unfortunately, led to his death. You are implying that the guards INTENDED to kill the guy. There is no evidence to suggest they INTENDED for the guy to die.

You may want to rethink your assumptions a little more.

 

Am, I? Really, JDawg?
How about we create a New Thread. And everyone we've ever insulted can come and post the quotes with link to thread and compare whether I "So often insult other posters" and while at it - take a look at your record of doing it. They can post your insults and derogatory comments and mine. Let's compare.

Wuddya say?

 

Bells.
As previously pointed out by myself and other members: Not enough has been reported or is known. Too much about the circumstances is unknown.
Your posts strike me as over-reacting, presumptuous and an attempt to incite a flame war. I will not debate you on this topic until More is Known About The Case.

As it is now- there are very few posts. Now is the time, if there are any questions about behavior- to have that behavior looked at as there is plenty to look at without there being fifteen pages to wade through. I've stated only a personal opinion. I've stated that may change as the facts of the case come out.

The flamewar ends Now.

 

Are you guys going by something not reported? because what i read didnt even list a cause of death. The article just said when the cops got there the guy apeared to need medical aid and that he died before he reached the hospital. My reading of that suggests not that he was beaten to death but rather that he died of respitory failure or heart failure though that is simply my gut intint nothing more. Now could he have been beaten to death? sure, could the guards be responcible for respitory or cardiac failure? Definitly (the knee in the back of a face down prisioner has killed lots of prisioners including in SA acording to the implications of our lecturer who was also the head of the Ambulance service) but as i said a coronial inquest (or US equivilant) is needed before we will know the full cirumstances, contributing factors and the cause of death.

 

Nope. Just you a.t.m., due to the tactics you employed.
Til more facts come to light, see you around the forum.

 

Yeah we're all, self included, putting the cart before the horse.
I kinda think the thread should take a break until we get more news on it...

 

No.
It's what I refer to misrepresenting what I've actually said. I posted those occasions clearly in post number 44.
Since, keeping "this event" to FEW posts is best, this will be my last response on this. Post number 53. Offhand, I'll guess it started around post 35. I'm not sure. In that area. Would have to flip back one page and look.
This doesn't mean I won't pop into the thread and post opinions or updates or whatever, just not going to do the Angry Fight thing again. It's just plain Unnecessary.

 

So not agreeing with someone is justification for insinuating something that there has been no evidence of? To clear for the record, Do you believe the guards INTENDED to kill the suspect?

I will redirect you to this statement shortly.

Are you saying that we should pity criminals? Maybe assuming the guy was a criminal is jumping to conclusions, but he was stating his opinion of criminals. The article is written in such a way to suggest he was a criminal. Not saying it was right or that Neverfly was right, but he interpreted things differently than you did. You seem to have interpreted that the guards intentionally withheld medical care from the suspect. Is your assumption any more right than Neverfly's. They are both assumptions and have caused you both to jump to conclusions. Neverfly has at least stated that if circumstances are revealed to suggest the contrary then his views will change. But I don't see how he can be faulted for holding a general lack of pity for criminals.

How does a lack of pity for criminals indicate a disrespect for the law? You do not have to have pity for someone to believe in justice. I have defended people I don't like many times. My son got the crap beat out of him for calling a bunch of girls on the playground lesbians. I did not have pity for him but I still cleaned his wounds. And after addressing his wounds I made him apologize to the girls and told him I hope he learned his lesson. You simply cannot do stupid things and expect to not get hurt.

yeah this still makes me laugh, I will explain why shortly.

No, I don't. And they didn't. He was alive when the police arrived and he died in the hospital.

Yes and according to the article, the police arrived at the same time that they successfully restrained him. It didn't say that they had him restrained and an hour later the police arrived. It says the police arrived just as they got him restrained. You are distorting the reported facts of the case.

No good reason that you can think of. I can think of a few possibilities and have stated them. But it is all still speculation and more FACTS are needed.

Again, they didn't restrain him til he died. He died in the hospital, not on the scene. Continuing to misstate the facts will not make your distortion true.

I am not familiar with the details of that case. I prefer to look at one case at a time. The events of the martin case have nothing to do with the case in the OP.

You are right, but there seems to be evidence of guilt. I'm not saying its solid and I am not saying Neverfly is right to assume guilt if in fact he is. But you are as wrong as he is by insinuating that the guards intended to deny the guy medical attention. I don't blame you, the reporter wrote in such a way to incite these feelings in people. If readers do not get emotionally involved in a case they don't continue read follow up stories. But as educated people we shouldn't allow ourselves to be suckered into over reacting and needless outrage when we don't know the facts.

Injury and/or death at the hands of those in authority is a common end to many thieves, robbers, and crook's lives. I think it is reasonable summation. Why would so many fairy tales end with the villain meeting a violent end if it were not a common end. Fairy tales being a tool to teach wisdom to children for a very long time. I recall police officers coming to our schools and reinforcing the idea to us even.

The same way I have seen most suspects restrained. I have seen it done many many times, having for a long time lived in a very depressed neighborhood watching my neighbors get arrested for various stupid acts of their own, some resisting, and none being beaten.

I am not saying the guards were right or wrong. I am only saying there is a possibility that their actions were justified. It is as likely that they were justified as it is that they were not justified. I am reserving judgement considering there is very little information available at this time.

By the way, you quoted me. What you quoted was ME SUPPORTING YOUR ARGUMENT. Maybe you need to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills. Stop assuming that because I disagree with you on one thing that I automatically disagree with you on EVERYTHING.

Bumps and scrapes are not indicative of a fatal beating. I have been beaten many times and have pictures of the bruise scrapes and blood to prove it, but look, I'm still alive. Considering how many living assault victims there are, it would seem to me that it would take quite an extreme beating to kill the guy. Even Reginald Denny and Rodney King survived far worse than what this guy was likely to have gone through.
I end up with scrapes, bumps, and bruising when I wrestle with my kids, but they are not beating me. You are really stretching the facts.

Absolutely not, but I don't think they beat him either.

They can't respond because they don't know. They are being responsible in the sense that it is irresponsible to promote assumptions and publicly speculate. If they respond without knowing the facts they can be held liable for the remarks they make. They are covering their asses. Kinda like when you are involved in an accident, the insurance company will tell you to never admit fault or they will not pay your claim.

Am I required to judge people the way you do?

yes but the situation you are describing is not the situation in the OP.

I do believe that crooks thieves and robbers often meet a tragic end. And no I do not feel sympathy for them. I would feel sympathy for the character you are creating. I do not believe the person you are defending fits the description of the man in the OP. I do not have a judgement on the dead man in the OP.

Actually I castigated everyone for jumping to conclusions. I did not address him by name, would you like me to? Does that matter to you? Are you in a competition?

@Neverfly- stop assuming the suspect was guilty of shoplifting

Feel better, Bells?

No actually I have told you how your words come across and asked you to confirm if it is what you meant. I asked for clarification.

The rest your post is directed at Neverfly who has stated at this point that he "will not participate in your flame war". And at this point I have to agree with him. You seem too emotionally charged to objectively discuss the OP.

 

Ok.

Interestingly, the article Bells posted seems to very much hint and nudge the reader to thinking that shoplifting is a trumped up charge...
Look at this:

And this...

It's almost as if one article displays him as a shoplifter and the other article that Bells linked to puts a definite spin that it's very questionable that he'd steal. What's with that?

Yes, PLEASE. The longer it goes on, the worse and more confusing it gets.

 

What's funny about Seagypsys's moaning is that Neverfly is the one who starts these flamewars and does the most damage in them. He also complains about them the most, so I guess he's managed to rope at least one person into his pity party, but the fact is that he's the worst offender. I'm not Bells' biggest fan, but she's done nothing wrong here. All this handwringing by Neverfly is just for show. It's trolling.

 

Actually, your bait isn't going to work, JDawg. Any reader can see, read and follow, how controversy started.

Now, please stay on topic.

 

Yes, that's right, any reader can see how the controversy started.

Oops!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!