TMF

Trace Adkins needs to explain himself for "Honkytonk Padunkadunk" long before he needs to explain why he's sporting a Confederate flag.

[quote name='Lester Weevils' timestamp='1354232274' post='852595']I thought signing a petition was part of the democratic process? Mebbe they should revoke clearances and fire people who sign ballot petitions for the "wrong candidate" as well? Signed a ballot petition for an R or L? Immediate dishonorable discharge![/quote] When it comes to clearances it is a different story, and is that way for a reason. Folks have a right to free speech and to sign petitions asking for the dissolution of our nation as it stands, but there is no Constitutional right to a security clearance. There are many, many things that can get a clearance pulled. This rides the edge of one of those things.

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1354283693' post='852798'] That reminds me, I need to make friends with a hog farmer.[/quote] They can still get DNA from piggy poo. Alligator is the way to go.

[quote name='Razz' timestamp='1354284096' post='852800'] Off topic: Have you considered Portland Oregon? Coolest city I've lived in and the state is gun friendly.[/quote] Awesome public transit there, but more homeless people per capita than I have ever seen.

The part I love was the irony of the comment "children that young aren't mature enough to handle a gun." Of course they aren't, that's why you supervise them handling an unloaded firearm and teach them why they should never should handle one without an adult around. If they aren't allowed to satisfy their curiosity, they'll do it without an adult around. I keep my guns locked up, but what happens when your kid is at someone else's house and finds an unsecured firearm? The first thing they'll do is pick it up and pull the trigger if they haven't been trained not to. My father was a LEO, and when I was young he always let me handle his service weapon starting at the age of five in order to desensitize me to the allure that most children have towards firearms. It works. New Yorkers have just lost their minds.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1354222226' post='852540']No offense intended - I was actually speaking generically and not about you specifically. However, I do suspect it's a bit of ego that plays a part In the "I'm going to chase them down to get my stuff back" that some here have espoused. [/quote] That is because you are a presumptuous elitist. I said that I'd stop someone stealing from me. Does that mean I automatically have a "tough guy" ego? Continue to look down your nose at those who chose not to be victimized. I'm happy for you that your income allows for you to fully insure every item of value you have to where you feel as if you have no duty to protect what is yours. You are a very small minority of the population.

[quote name='K191145' timestamp='1354207383' post='852443'] I'm just assuming, and maybe an LEO can verify it but either anger control is part of the training or should be. I actually applaud LEO's who remain in control of their anger when detaining someone who wants to fight, may have punched them in the face or spit on them etc. I don't know if I would be able to control my anger with some of the video's i've seen of some suspects and I do realize they often have to get very physical with some of them to subdue them. It's just hard to imagine that a security guard and two other employees had to use a hold that many police departments have banned to subdue one man and the force in which it seems was applied. A logical theory might be that the security guard was punched in the face which understandably caused alot of anger so when he applied the choke hold he used more force than needed and for a longer time than needed, his anger controlled him. I also have to assume that a choke hold is banned by many police departments because it's potentially dangerous and could cause harm or death.[/quote] You still have no idea how he died.

I just wanted to share my experience with this after shooting one that someone brought to the Thanksgiving reunion this year. This thing fired flawlessly through about 200 rds of the federal brick ammo sitting on a Kimber compact (commander) lower. The upper itself is full size, but it didn't make much difference in regard to mechanics, just sight acquisition, which is easier with the full size anyway. Being able to slap this on your lower and train with all the mechanics minus the recoil is a great tool. I have to say, this is what my shooting life has been missing. I will be ordering one of these within the week and see myself shooting it quite often.

Assault a convenience store clerk at 0330 in the AM and you might get shot a little bit. Those places are known to get robbed. Opening the door was a stoopid move though and will probably be what gets him charged. If it was as simple as someone coming into his business at 0330 and assaulting him, he would have every right to put this sorry waste of human trash in the ground.

[quote name='scoutfsu' timestamp='1354155037' post='852198']TMF, Because people like the OP have all sorts of grudges for all sorts of reasons. Bank on the fact that because it was a WalMart, people will feel like they're sticking it to big business too. Look at the people in this thread that are lamenting this criminal.....even though in the commission of a criminal act he initiated, then escalated to battery.....things went wrong. As a result of his direct, criminal actions - things spun out of control and he ended up dead. [/quote] I believe you are correct.

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1354146819' post='852127'] What about the Constitutional Rights of the guy being punched in the face? The guy didn’t get killed for stealing DVD’s he got killed because he had to be forcibly restrained because he was committing a battery. Wal-Mart may have a store policy that you have to crower and run away when a violent criminal attacks you; but thankfully that has no bearing on criminal law.[/quote] This right here is the crux of the whole incident. Finding 12 people who all agree that the actions of the security guard were not reasonable would be tough. Heck, as a patron, if I was at Walmart and saw an employee being beaten I would absolutely intervene and subdue the attacker. Having broke up plenty of fights I can tell you my "go to" move is putting the dude in a choke hold. It gives great control and allows the option of putting him to sleep if he doesn't submit. It looks like the guard did exactly that, and was in a capacity where he may have felt duty bound to stop the assault. Walmart policies be damned, if you saw your boss getting beaten and you were a security guard, you may feel obligated to intervene. I mean, damn. I could present all that to a jury having zero law experience and get them to find him not guilty. Why would anyone call it murder other than allowing emotion to cloud logic and reason?

[quote name='Sam1' timestamp='1354137786' post='852071']Spoke with the management here and they said to just have it towed because they tell everyone when they move in not to block the garages.[/quote] Do this. They will not make that mistake again.

[quote name='K191145' timestamp='1354140422' post='852090']I have read several stories about this incident and what is clear about it is, the security guard and employees violated Walmarts policy on handling a shoplifter, the guard put the shoplifter in a choke hold, when real police arrived they found the man unconscience and bleeding from the nose and mouth then was pronounced dead a short time later. Sure sounds like the guard went way too far in subduing someone who lifted a few CD's. I guess I just happen to actually care about a persons constitutional rights, and yes, even a common thief still has some constitutional rights left, at least not to be mishandled to the point of death by a private security guard who apparently had little or poor training. It's obvious a few here have their panties in a wad because I cared about the dead mans rights which makes me wonder how much they really care about someones constitutional rights. Anyway, I stand by what I believe regardless of what a anyone else believes and i'm not going to apologize for it.[/quote] Don't be surprised when he isn't charged or convicted of anything. Last time I checked Walmart policy had diddly squat to do with law. In fact, Walmart policy on pursuing shoplifters has nothing to do with loss prevention and everything to do with civil lawsuits from slimy, vulturous lawyers.

[quote name='LINKS2K' timestamp='1354118785' post='851923'] I'll bet a lot of folks won't venture to read that far.[/quote] I didn't, but that's only because I don't value the opinions of famous actors enough to care what their political views are one way or the other.... not unless they take it to the Jane Fonda extreme.

[quote name='BryanP' timestamp='1354115557' post='851888'] If they're holding a gun or driving a large vehicle, their gender is irrelevant.[/quote] Roger. The point being had it been a man I would have interpreted her behavior as being a threat rather than just a loony woman,

[quote name='rebeldrummer' timestamp='1354115693' post='851889'] why the broad stroke, stereotype response? are you holding a grudge? wearing your emotions on your sleeve and carrying a chip on your shoulder is NOT the way to live my friend.[/quote] I believe it was sarcasm directed at the OP. I wonder how differently folks would interpret this thread if it were titled "Shoplifter killed after violently assaulting store manager." I opened this thread expecting it to be some vigilante wannabe taking the opportunity to get his kill on. That is not what I got from the facts of the story.

[quote name='Parrothead' timestamp='1354073542' post='851743'] To rely on a dog for protection, i would consider some specialized training. For a noise maker, ours is typically pretty good--til it mattered most.[/quote] Well I believe that is the service a dog provides. Most dogs aren't going to go on the offensive, especially if they see you as the alpha and take cues from you. They are there to be noise makers which accomplishes two tasks: 1. Early Warning 2. Deterrent Criminals tend to case their jobs and are far less likely to hit a house known to have dogs.

[quote name='D3vo' timestamp='1354108653' post='851837'] Not true. Only one person needed. The other is sometimes called the victim.[/quote] Yep. Been chased down before by a crazy lady who was convinced I cursed at her. Never saw her van before and my windows we're up. She blocked me in in a Walmart parking lot and got out of her van to scream at me like a loon. Coulda ended a lot differently if that were a dude.

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354064727' post='851669']I don't care what the circumstances were he didn't deserve to be held down by two people while the third apparently choked him to death then continued to pin down his lifeless body in the parking lot. That isn't justice, that is at best homicide and at worst murder.[/quote] So, that is how it went down? Wow. I figured from the story it went much, much differently. Murder... wow.

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354048879' post='851519']This appears to put the manager who first laid hands on the suspect in the clear. After that the use of excessive force during the resulting altercation is up for debate.[/font][/font][/quote] I don't think it is. A choke hold is a pretty standard technique for subduing someone. I've been choked out several dozen times and have choked out others about as many. It is quick, effective and relatively safe. We don't know what actually killed him, so we'll have to see. But even if it was the result of an overly aggressive choke, I doubt anyone will see any jail time. Just lots of civil suits.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1354048839' post='851518'] Feel free to confront if you wish...tell me I'm "choosing to be a victim" if you wish...but I see nothing worth emulating in possibly causing the death of someone just to protect "stuff"; even less so when it's not even my stuff. I have insurance to protect stuff, I have arms to protect my life and the lives of others.[/quote] No one is saying that. You're picking a fight that isn't there. Simply put, it is up to the criminal as to the level of force used against him. I can't shoot someone if they're stealing my car. But if that person becomes violent when I confront them it is a different story. If he flees then he is the problem of law enforcement. You seem to equate someone protecting their stuff as vigilantism.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1354047106' post='851499'] I didn't realize asking a question was "getting huffy". Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as if you were presenting your version as if it was what happened when the truth is we don't know anything that precisely. That said, whether we have "right to confront" or not, if the alleged thief dies during the confrontation the confronter is probably going to be charged with some sort of homicide charge and deservedly so IMHO. I think "confronting" anyone simply because he may be steeling something is a questionable choice for one to make; "stuff" isn't worth anybody dying whether the anybody is the alleged thief, the alleged victim or just an innocent bystander...some seem to be pretty content and okay with the fact that it was only the "thief" who died but had the thief in this story been armed and decided to start shooting rather than just try to get away, who knows how many innocent people in that parking lot could have been killed or seriously injured...can anybody here really tell me with a straight face that this couple hundred dollars of someone's property is worth that? If anyone can then I truly believe that person needs to reexamine their priorities because if stuff is that important to someone they have a problem.[/quote] It is the way you say it Robert. You ride the edge of provocative with your responses, then get indignant when someone calls you on it. As for the rest, you are free to allow people to steal your property and wait for the police. People protect their property everyday without being charged with a crime. An individual has to take it pretty far to find themselves in a courtroom in this state. I choose not to allow someone to take my stuff. That is my right. If someone decides to take my things I will stop them with force from taking it. It is up to the criminal how much force I will use. That is how it works. The law supports that. It isn't about how valuable the stuff is. It is about something completely different. Being a victim is a choice, and I choose not to be.

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354046929' post='851497'] This is the main part of the story that everyones actions hinge on. If the manager was in the wrong for pursuing the thief and dragging him to the ground in the first place then anyone helping him in the resulting fight is also in the wrong. Does the law allow a private citizen to use physical force to detain a thief? From what has been reported the thief became violent AFTER being brought to the ground by the Walmart employee. Unless there is some exemption in the law for pursuing a petty thief that allows the use of force then the manager escalated the situation and will likely suffer the consequences.[/quote] There is a good chance that is the case, however, if the security guard wasn't involved in reeling the guy back into the store, his actions were probably reasonable for how he interpreted the situation. Point I'm making, the security guard seems to be the focus of wrongdoing, when in fact, it appears that everything he did can be reasonably explained. I can't say the same about the shoplifter, unless he wasn't actually shoplifting and was jut some random guy the manager decided to hassle.

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354045712' post='851477'] My question is did the manager have the right to pursue him and drag him to the ground? If I had a verbal confrontation with someone i felt had stolen something from my storage building and they turned to run away and I physically asault them it has always been my understanding that I would be the one guilty of escalating the situation. If I escalate the situation I have no claim to self defense...[/quote] The manager isn't the one who restrained him in the choke hold. As for the legality if the manager dragging him back into the store? I dunno. I'm pretty sure he law says you can use force to take back wht is yours. If someone walks out your front door with a TV you can stop them. If they drop it and run then you can't use force to hold them, although it happens all the time and I doubt ciminal charges come from it, at least not where I live. The issue here is not that he died. There is no intent, and so long as the guy had their property they had a right to get it back. He died as an accident, unless you think a gainfully employed security guard decided that he was going to murder someone for chits and grins.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1354045179' post='851472'] Really? You know all that for a fact? You may have a right to "confront" someone but I doubt any DA in Tennessee is going to give you much latitude if he is trying to run away and you end up killing him while trying to restrain him.[/quote] I don't know that for a fact. It appears to be what happened. The loss prevention guy didn't drag him back into the store. It appears he reacted to the actions of the perp fighting the manager. If I were a security guard and saw the GM getting beat up by a shop lifter, I'd step in and restrain him too. All sounds reasonable to me. No need for you to get stirred up about it and get huffy with me.