"PRIVATE" security Rambo at Wallmart kills a shoplifter.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='rebeldrummer' timestamp='1354215047' post='852490']
noted...still didnt want to stoop to others levels and air anything out on the thread. i even think some where in TGO history mods other others in authority have asked us not to do that?? just trying to comply.
[/quote]

Got it. Just pointing out that the post hit the emails.

[TGO David]

[quote name='rebeldrummer' timestamp='1354215047' post='852490']
noted...still didnt want to stoop to others levels and air anything out on the thread. i even think some where in TGO history mods other others in authority have asked us not to do that?? just trying to comply.
[/quote]

Interesting. I think I said I wasn't naming names yet you're all but tripping over your dick {keeping with the Favre analogy because, well ... it's funny} to implicate yourself for some reason, and I'm still not saying who the PM was about.

Got something you need to get off your chest? Maybe it'll make you feel better and bring some value to this thread.

Otherwise, I'm still keeping quiet about who I was referring to.

[Guest RevScottie]

[quote name='Lumber_Jack' timestamp='1354212771' post='852474']
I'm not sure this is valid. Come punch me in the face and my first reaction will be to draw. This guy chose to use his hands(choke hold). If you are being attacked (punched) at what point do you judge your life to be in danger. People die all the time in fights. I don't start them, but if you come at me I will defend myself.
[/quote]

For the use of deadly force you must fear either death or serious bodily injury.

"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that involves:[list]
[*]A substantial risk of death;
[*]Protracted unconsciousness;
[*]Extreme physical pain;
[*]Protracted or obvious disfigurement;
[*]Protracted loss or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty; or
[*]A broken bone of a child who is eight (8) years of age or less;
[/list]



What this really means is if there is any question whatsoever about the use of deadly force your fate will be controlled by lawyers, judges, and juries. Thats the reason i have pointed out in this thread that the manager was the first one to become violent by tackling the shoplifter to the ground. It will be up to the legal system to determine if the shoplifter actions warranted a violent response. The shoplifter only became violent after being tackled by the manager while he was running from the store. I can certainly see a lawyer twisting this to say that the very reason he ran in the first place was he was fearful. The shoplifter's lawyer will claim he was only trying to defend himself from an overly aggressive manager and then two others jumped in and and proceeded to "choke out" his client resulting in his death. Yeah you may think it sucks for a thief to have rights but those rights are there to protect all of us.

If this case is as cut and dry as some seem to think why are they waiting on the autopsy report to see if charges are to be filed? And nothing factual has been presented so far, only news reports so everything is simply speculation on my part or anyone elses.

I think the smarter decision would have been just to let the guy go instead of trying to physically detain him. The risk cleary isn't worth the reward in this type of case in my opinion. The one thing you can bet on is because of their actions these three employees will likely face a lengthy legal battle in either civil or criminal court that will probably ruin them for life financialy and they will have to live with the fact that their actions led to a man's death. They will have no backing from their employer because they violated company policy. Doesn't seem like its worth all of that to me... Edited November 29, 2012 by RevScottie

[Guest rebeldrummer]

[quote name='TGO David' timestamp='1354215417' post='852496']
Interesting. I think I said I wasn't naming names yet[size=4][color=#FF0000] you're all but tripping over your dick [size=5][b]COMPLIMENT TAKEN. THANK YOU![/b][/size][/color][/size] {keeping with the Favre analogy because, well ... it's funny} to implicate yourself for some reason, and I'm still not saying who the PM was about.

Got something you need to get off your chest? Maybe it'll make you feel better and bring some value to this thread.

Otherwise, I'm still keeping quiet about who I was referring to.
[/quote]

this was directed towards me....i am aware that emails went out. fine with me....i have nothing to hide nor implicate myself with. as in the main story the OP posted, all facts were not out in the open before people thought it was cool to comment....

[Lumber_Jack]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354217632' post='852505']
For the use of deadly force you must fear either death or serious bodily injury.

"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that involves:[list]
[*]A substantial risk of death;
[*]Protracted unconsciousness;
[*]Extreme physical pain;
[*]Protracted or obvious disfigurement;
[*]Protracted loss or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty; or
[*]A broken bone of a child who is eight (8) years of age or less;
[/list]


What this really means is if there is any question whatsoever about the use of deadly force your fate will be controlled by lawyers, judges, and juries. Thats the reason i have pointed out in this thread that the manager was the first one to become violent by tackling the shoplifter to the ground. It will be up to the legal system to determine if the shoplifter actions warranted a violent response. The shoplifter only became violent after being tackled by the manager while he was running from the store. I can certainly see a lawyer twisting this to say that the very reason he ran in the first place was he was fearful. The shoplifter's lawyer will claim he was only trying to defend himself from an overly aggressive manager and then two others jumped in and and proceeded to "choke out" his client resulting in his death. Yeah you may think it sucks for a thief to have rights but those rights are there to protect all of us.

If this case is as cut and dry as some seem to think why are they waiting on the autopsy report to see if charges are to be filed? And nothing factual has been presented so far, only news reports so everything is simply speculation on my part or anyone elses.

I think the smarter decision would have been just to let the guy go instead of trying to physically detain him. The risk cleary isn't worth the reward in this type of case in my opinion. The one thing you can bet on is because of their actions these three employees will likely face a lengthy legal battle in either civil or criminal court that will probably ruin them for life financialy and they will have to live with the fact that their actions led to a man's death. They will have no backing from their employer because they violated company policy. Doesn't seem like its worth all of that to me...
[/quote]


you are taking the luxury of processing this incident over much thought. I'm sure the Manager didn't put too much thought into it before tackling the shoplifter.

But as others have said, if you steal from me, chances are high I will chase you down and detain you. Yes, I know I cant shoot you in the back, and don't feel theft warrants death, but I can confront you. If you show force in response, well then I'll just hire a damn good lawyer and fate will be what it will be.

I love how this forum thinks only the lawyers for defense can twist and turn things in their clients favor. Yes it will be expensive, but that's a risk we all take when carrying a weapon for self defense.

[Guest RevScottie]

[quote name='Lumber_Jack' timestamp='1354219039' post='852518']
you are taking the luxury of processing this incident over much thought. I'm sure the Manager didn't put too much thought into it before tackling the shoplifter.

But as others have said, if you steal from me, chances are high I will chase you down and detain you. Yes, I know I cant shoot you in the back, and don't feel theft warrants death, but I can confront you. If you show force in response, well then [color=#FF0000]I'll just hire a damn good lawyer and fate will be what it will be[/color].

I love how this forum thinks only the lawyers for defense can twist and turn things in their clients favor. Yes it will be expensive, but that's a risk we all take when carrying a weapon for self defense.
[/quote]

Just keep in mind no matter how good your lawyer is your fate is still determined by a jury that will likely have had any gun enthusiast or carry permit holder carefully excluded from it. You may very well be left with your fate in the hands of a soccer Mom who doesnt know what a Glock is but sees on the news that all the gangbangers carry them so she assumes anyone possessing one must be a bad person. Way too much risk in the jury pool to expose yourself to it if you can avoid it.

[Lumber_Jack]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354220198' post='852529']

Just keep in mind no matter how good your lawyer is your fate is still determined by a jury that will likely have had any gun enthusiast or carry permit holder carefully excluded from it. You may very well be left with your fate in the hands of a soccer Mom who doesnt know what a Glock is but sees on the news that all the gangbangers carry them so she assumes anyone possessing one must be a bad person. Way too much risk in the jury pool to expose yourself to it if you can avoid it.[/quote]

So am I to assume you don't carry a gun? Because any self defense has a chance to go before a jury. I fully understand the implications of a trial by jury.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Lumber_Jack' timestamp='1354219039' post='852518']...But as others have said, if you steal from me, chances are high I will chase you down and detain you. Yes, I know I cant shoot you in the back, and don't feel theft warrants death, but I can confront you. If you show force in response, well then I'll just hire a damn good lawyer and fate will be what it will be.[/quote]

I may be wrong about the author but it seems to me that I remember reading in one of Massad Ayoob's books something to the effect that when one is armed and his actions escalate a situation, even if the armed citizen didn't initially start it; that the responsibility for what happens at that point will usually land on him (I'm HIGHLY paraphrasing obviously). I took that to mean that for the most part, you do your best to stay out of situations where you may be forced to pull your weapon to defend yourself if it's later determined that you could have avoided the whole thing by simply not engaging.

I know it's real macho and manly to confront a thief but my opinion, my conscious and my training tells me that when you strap on a firearm you also take on the responsibility of avoiding confrontation if at all possible.

Protecting stuff seems to me to be about the most unimportant and silliest reason to get into a confrontation where you may have to pull your weapon and/or end up with someone dead. The only thing even more unimportant is going through that when it's not your property and against the expressed policy of the people employing you.

[jtmaze]

[quote name='MilitiaMan' timestamp='1353963371' post='850940']
I'd like to see the employees and wannabe cop involved fired and prosecuted. Then hopefully the family of the victim sues and is awarded millions. Too much of this "power trip" crap going on in todays LE (legit or not).
[/quote]

That goes along with using military tactics to train police. It teaches an us vs. them mentality which does not work in police that are good cops doing there jobs.

[Lumber_Jack]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1354220851' post='852533']

I may be wrong about the author but it seems to me that I remember reading in one of Massad Ayoob's books something to the effect that when one is armed and his actions escalate a situation, even if the armed citizen didn't initially start it; that the responsibility for what happens at that point will usually land on him (I'm HIGHLY paraphrasing obviously). I took that to mean that for the most part, you do your best to stay out of situations where you may be forced to pull your weapon to defend yourself if it's later determined that you could have avoided the whole thing by simply not engaging.

I know it's real macho and manly to confront a thief but my opinion, my conscious and my training tells me that when you strap on a firearm you also take on the responsibility of avoiding confrontation if at all possible.

Protecting stuff seems to me to be about the most unimportant and silliest reason to get into a confrontation where you may have to pull your weapon and/or end up with someone dead. The only thing even more unimportant is going through that when it's not your property and against the expressed policy of the people employing you.[/quote]

I don't think Massad was referring to stopping theft of your property. More to the act of starting fights in public over things that should be walked away from.

This is obviously straying from the original topic as none of them owned the stolen items and none were armed.

Again, I feel I understand the full implications of statements made.

I like how you automatically assume ego has any factor, I don't feel manly or macho confronting a thief, I'm protecting what's mine. Yes things are replaceable but I'll be damned of I'm gonna just let you walk off with them.

[Guest RevScottie]

[quote name='Lumber_Jack' timestamp='1354220480' post='852531']
So am I to assume you don't carry a gun? Because any self defense has a chance to go before a jury. I fully understand the implications of a trial by jury.
[/quote]

As Robert was saying I think it is in my best interest to avoid any confrontation that I can. I certainly don't want to escalate the situation and I will simply walk away rather than doing so. Having the ability to use deadly force is a huge responsibility and I don't want to wind up in that sitution over simple property theft or because of my own anger. Deadly force will be an absolute last choice to protect myself or my family.

[RobertNashville]

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.

[Lumber_Jack]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354221792' post='852539']
As Robert was saying I think it is in my best interest to avoid any confrontation that I can. I certainly don't want to escalate the situation and I will simply walk away rather than doing so. Having the ability to use deadly force is a huge responsibility and I don't want to wind up in that sitution over simple property theft or because of my own anger. Deadly force will be an absolute last choice to protect myself or my family.
[/quote]

the whole premise of yours are Roberts argument is based on the fact that we KNOW the suspect died. I bet you any amount of money if you asked those employees if they would change their actions to bring back the deceased, they would.

They didn't intend to kill him as far as we know, it was a result of actions, which I think are justified obviously you all disagree.

If I chase a thief off my property, and he has a heart defect, and falls dead in the street, is that different? Edited November 29, 2012 by Lumber_Jack

[TMF]

[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.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I can guarantee I will use every tool and every ounce of being to get my stuff back up to intentionally taking a life. And the reason I won't intentionally take a life is because of some moral obligation to let a criminal live but because I cannot provide for or protect my family if I am in jail.

Dolomite

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Lumber_Jack' timestamp='1354222277' post='852542']the whole premise of yours are Roberts argument is based on the fact that we KNOW the suspect died....

If I chase a thief off my property, and he has a heart defect, and falls dead in the street, is that different?
[/quote]
I think so, yes.

That hypothetical question of yours hits a bit close to home, literally...this morning, a back window of mine was broken; apparently by "somebody". This immediately set of two alarms, my security system sensing the glass break and my four-legged system. Whoever it was ran and was gone from my back yard before I could even get to that part of the house. Had the "somebody" been subsequently hit and killed by a car as he ran across the street trying to get away because he was afraid of the alarm I would not feel in any way to blame...were I actively chasing him and he was hit by the same car then yes, I would have, in my opinion, played a part in his death; even if it was only a small part.

The premise of my argument is not that I know someone died. Accidents happen...they are unintentional...that's why we call them accidents. But if I can help it, I'm not going to engage in actions that may result in the death of another human being just to protect stuff unless that person is threatening me; that is the premise of my argument...while there are things I would hate to lose, I don't own anything that is worth killing for or dying for and frankly, if my stuff was that important to me I hope I would examine my priorities (even if thinking that way makes me a "presumptuous elitist"). Edited November 29, 2012 by RobertNashville

[c.a.willard]

It may have been covered already in another post, so sorry if i missed it. But i think it's flawed logic for anyone to assume the choke hold was the cause of death. The article specifically said the officer noticed the subject unresponsive and ordered the group of people to get off of him. This indicates that the subject may just as likely of died from positional asphyxia as he could have from the choke hold.