April 24th, 2012 12:49 AM
(My turn at the computer!)
Originally Posted by Hopyard
I think one of the few things you and I generally agree on is the quality and reliability of information from the news media!
My experience with Walmart loss prevention was at internal affairs as a union rep for one of my coworkers. This person was making a good living, had two kids, active in their church, spouse owned a sucessful business. They had been with the department three years and on my shift for two. I didn't believe this person was a thief. Until I saw the video, that is. They had bought about $150 worth of stuff, but had concealed $20 worth of cosmetics. The video even showed them looking around to see if anyone was watching. It was a slam dunk. They had all their ducks in a row.
I was talking with the Sgt afterwards and she told me that the LP supervisor told her that if they are not sure they will let someone walk. Grabbing someone and being wrong is going to cost them a lot more in a settlement than letting a few CD's walk out the door.
Do we know if he had a CHL or if he was carrying illegally? As interesting a question as that may be it really might not matter.
If there was in fact a shoplifitng, he could not argue self defense,
If there was no shoplifting,
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
I am betting that the burden would be on the accused to prove they used greater force before he resisted. If he can't that resistance is just another assault charge against him. But of course if someone died from their resistance that could be a trip to Huntsville and a date with a needle.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
Is there a particular reason folks in your area are concerned about the LP staff at this Walmart? Do they have a reputation or a demonstrated record of physically abusing shoplifting suspects?
Not knowing any more about the case than what I have read here I agree that more information is needed. But given the totallity of the circumstances as I read them here it seems more likely that it was a shoplifting gone bad and then he pulled weapons in a bid for freedom than the loss prevention staff just happened to pick him out at random to drag him into the back room for a tune up.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
April 24th, 2012 02:31 PM
A few points, mostly in full agreement with what you wrote.
Originally Posted by mcp1810
1) The section on resisting a peace office might be irrelevant. LP are not certified peace officers, so I don't know if that
part of the statute would apply. However, a right to SD would be retained if someone were falsely accused and ganged on
such that they reasonably felt their life was in danger.
2) As far as I know there is no particular or even rumored reason to suppose there are systematic problems with WM
LP in our community. They did however have a new employee involved in this, and that leaves doors open to the possibility
that relevant training and procedures may have not happened, or been followed. However, the news stories give no indication of such and that possibility is mere speculation for the sake of discussion.
3) I have no clue if the guy was lawfully carrying or committing a crime by carrying, or even if the gun which is
alleged to have been his was his; same for the knife. I want our police to make public the evidence that the
dead guy really did what LP are saying he did. I want someone prosecuted if the story turn out to be bogus.
A tragedy happened, and two kids are left without a dad. It is important that the episode gets all the sunshine
it possibly can.
I may write our Mayor yet or give her a call.
4) I agree with you that it seems likely that this is indeed a shop lifting gone bad. If so, I want our authorities
to provide ample evidence that they have correctly investigated the incident, and that they have reached
the logical conclusion.
And if they think something else happened, then I expect them to take appropriate action and not let a homicide
get swept under the rug. I do have confidence in our DA's office. I have confidence in our police, but
this event is too serious to be handled in a casual manner. A very thorough investigation is necessary, and the
public needs to know what occurred, not what the TV station and local rag say happened.
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Search tags for this page
gecko45 mall ninja
gecko45 original thread
gecko45 what bad guys was he up against
gecko45 who i
loss pervention gone wrong
loss prevention incident gone wrong
original gecko45 thread
wheres gecko45 when you need him
who is gecko45 mall ninja
who is the real gecko45
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors