Suspected shoplifter dies after being detained at California Walmart

Are you kidding? The riot act you're reading to Bells is basically the same one you read to me, and the same one you're now reading to Trippy. Who hasn't gotten this reaction out of you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually this isn't accurate. The company policy is to disengage, but takes into account the necessity to defend oneself. as it appears so far, that may have no relevance to the case- but it is relevant to our arguments.

Secondly, "My Insistence" was based on all of three short posts. You are putting words in my mouth. What I said was that he was "Fair Game" and that is my Opinion- You don't have to LIKE IT OR AGREE with it.

You referred to "Monster" first- and while I was on the defensive, I said, fine I'm a monster. So what? It's no more macho than you claiming to have size 13 shoes or that you set down your beer before brawling.

Uhhh whatever, troop. The reaction you're seeing is to Bells behavior. When Bells and I argue in thread- the thread explodes. You're mis-characterizing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thats settled then
kiwi's are pussies

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trippy- you ignore that Bells claimed I want to Deny Medical Attention.
You ignore that Bells claimed I want the Death Penalty Inflicted at the scene of the crime. That's two examples of many and I said NONE of these things, nor did I say anything that implies I would say that. Bells emotional reactions led to gross mis-characterizations.
You ignored that Bells showed a great deal of inaccurate information. This is what led to the huge flame out.

As far as it takes two it break it up- I DO TRY and the threads Ive argued with Bells in SHOWS this. She keeps pushing until I Blow My Top.
You express a complete lack of interest in the events and the argument- so WHY ARE YOU POSTING ABOUT IT?
If you haven't checked on it and do not care- your opinion on that doesn't impress me much.

 

kiwis's are unfeeling bastards in addition to that other thing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No it isn't. I said the point was conditional, and "as it turns out," they did not disengage from the alleged shoplifter. So if it isn't relevant to this case, it isn't relevant to the argument.

What words did I put in your mouth? You said they don't have a responsibility to the wellbeing of the shoplifter. You said he was "fair game" and that "this is what happens." Those are direct quotes.

Oh, right, you were "on the defensive" after implying that I was a "bleeding-heart liberal."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, admittedly you use less bold lettering and much less underlining when crying foul over mine and Trippy's posts, but the complaining amounts to the same thing.

 

You should have done it after THIS post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944143&postcount=47

You did not, you kept pushing.

Now I AM pushing, back. You're accountable Bells- you created this with your lies- so don't complain that I'm still calling you out for it. At some point, you will have to learn how to question things appropriately, not by lying about another person, refusing to acknowledge mistakes or misapplying painted images of their character.

 

That was his punishment for shopping at Walmart.

Oh, who am I kidding, I love Walmart!

 

Where else could you get such great videos.

People Of Walmart (Sexy And I Know It - LMFAO)

 

Very well-
Where I live, a person is Innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Where I live, if you witness someone stab someone thirty times and grin, right in front of you, you're perfectly allowed to have an opinion about how they stabbed someone thirty times right in front of you.

I did not twist the conversation- I brought it back to what I wanted to talk about.
That was wrong of me and I have no business discussing it in this thread. I will avoid doing that now.

I did, however, find your anecdote irrelevant as not everyone can be expected to end an assault without injuring the other party. It may be possible at times, but not at others. It's anecdotal and it can be an opinion you have in regards to that one experience- it still has no bearing on whether the guys at Wal-Mart screwed up:

Some clarifications:
I do not believe these guys denied medical help willingly or that they "inflicted the death penalty." I think that they attempted to stop what they believed was a thief.
It is possible the man had a heart condition and was running to his car with pills- Maybe he was using the cart as a "Walker" leaning on it to give him strength- Following this speculation- it seems reasonable that he had no intent to steal.
It's also speculative and the Wal-mart employees had No Way Of Knowing that.
He gasped, "I'm dying!" A lot of crooks do. Police had been called, were on the way and Arrived Just as they got this guy to the ground.
How much time was that? Not even a full minute for someone to get out into a parking lot, across some of it before either being tackled or falling to the ground?
Not a lot of time there, to react, think or access a situation. A person can only do their best.
If the man was innocent and needed medications- ran to the car and was mistaken for a thief- end result being his death when he did not get to his vehicle- I grieve for him and the family. And for the employees who made an honest mistake- Not inflicted the death penalty.

If he was a thief that violently attacked Security guards, I'd have no sympathy for him.
And if someone dislikes that- Sue me.

 

I disagree- Stated a general opinion and Also Said It's Too Early to tell on This Case- three times.
My general opinion got lambasted and turned into a word brawl that extended well past the topic.

Personally, I do not have a problem with violence. many may find that offensive... But I think that violence has its place and cannot always be labeled as wrong or negative.

Akaido as well. But most people don't have that kind of training and can only respond in a primitive way.

Can they have been expected to do otherwise? A lot of guys claim a lot of things when being tackled by cops or security!
Until they are detained and in a more controlled environment, people cannot assume much of anything except "He's trying to get away."
Is this not what police do? Detain, get control and then investigate? You DID say you are in law enforcement, correct?
So tell us- do cops let people get away or run when they say something? Or do they seize control?
And remember- these are not even cops with training. Additionally, it was only a matter of seconds.

And they pursued- but there is nothing wrong with that. He had stolen goods (If they were not paid for- they are stolen) outside of the store and was fleeing on foot.
Can they be blamed? I think not.

You can contribute to the death of another inadvertently no matter how well you try to handle a situation. They MAY have contributed. But the man seemed to know something was wrong and there's no telling that nothing they could have done would have prevented it.
If he was feeling a heart attack come on, he did not run to the front counter and request an ambulance.
He ran out to his car. With stolen goods.
He may have contributed to his death... But it may have been a certain thing no matter what they did.
We do not yet know enough at this time. We cannot say with any certainty that they caused his death or even- contributed to it.

True.

He made a claim half-way through Crime Prevention. Could it really be taken seriously in the matter of seconds that they had?
Why did he not go to the front desk and request paramedics- immediately? Why did he flee the store, running to his car with a cart full of unpaid merchandise?
Hey- call me crazy but- I think this is a very valid question.

He very much acted the part and they can hardly be blamed for that assumption.

I think this line plays heavily into the argument between Bells and I.
Now- watch Bells or I justify our perceptions.

Fact is, the WalMart employees can hardly be blamed for seeing a man flee with stolen merchandise and put as a priority that it was his intent to steal- while he was fleeing- and try to prevent his getting away.
Speculation:
It is possible that it was his intent to steal. The stress resulted in aggravating a pre-existing condition. He then panicked, striking out at others, who tried to subdue him, unaware of a condition they could not have known about.

You nor I nor anyone else in this thread KNOWS that.

They could not have known what moment the police would arrive- they knew to detain- You are being Unreasonable at this point.

Perhaps, but a man fleeing with stolen goods still looks like a man fleeing with stolen goods.
Whether he had intent to steal or not has yet to be established, trippy- yet you are seeming to have already decided he was not intending to steal.

You cannot answer the question- but it remains valid- Why did he flee with a cart of unpaid goods out of the store and run to his car instead of asking for help inside of the store?

Yes.
But if he were to Violently attack them, they also have the right to injure him in self defense.

Yes, but they first gain CONTROL of the situation. They detain first, then call for medical help if needed. They put the safety of others in the area and will deal with the violence at hand, First. Many criminals even cause more injury to themselves during their thrashing, which gets ignored until he is subdued.
Some arguments presented make it really sound like cops are expected to just Back away and allow a violent man to either run off or do whatever he wants, so as to take care to not harm him.
No.
If he must be harmed to stop his violence- he gets harmed.

Yes.
But that still doesn't mean that we do not detain individuals caught in the act.