Wow! Walmart problems keep on coming, and I really thought it was safe to go shopping at Walmart again. I'm really hoping this guy had a pre-exsiting condition.


A suspected shoplifter died at a Southern California Walmart store last Friday after fighting with store security workers who caught him in the parking lot, police said.

The man's name was not available as of Sunday because his family had yet to be notified, Lt. Joe Bale of the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

Police found the suspect restrained by security workers and appearing to need medical attention, Covina police Lt. Holly Francisco told The Associated Press.

"While being detained in the parking lot, the suspect began fighting with the loss prevention personnel," Deputy Peter Gomez of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's bureau said in a written statement obtained by the Tribune.

"When the (police) officers arrived, the suspect was being restrained by loss prevention officers," Gomez said, according to the report. "The Covina police officers saw the suspect appeared to be in medical distress and called for paramedics to respond."

Police called paramedics, but the man was pronounced dead at the hospital. It was unclear whether his death was a result of the struggle or due to a pre-existent condition.

Police told the AP the man was accused of stealing clothing and body wash. An investigation that includes an autopsy and a review of surveillance video is under way to determine the cause of death.

Wal-Mart Stores spokeswoman Dianna Gee said in a statement that the security workers involved in the altercation are currently suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.

“Any time there’s a loss of life, it’s a sad situation," Gee's statement read. "We don’t know all of the facts right now, but we are cooperating with law enforcement and providing any information we have to assist in the investigation."

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/05/12068628-suspected-shoplifter-dies-after-being-detained-at-california-walmart#comments

The article is so informative, I don't see how we can draw very clear conclusions.:rolleyes:

Looks like walmart' s scared. Another lawsuit is in the air.

Looks like walmart' s scared. Another lawsuit is in the air.

They can afford it more than the bad press they'll get.

The article is so informative, I don't see how we can't draw very clear conclusions.

True, but I like to get this type of posts started as the investigation takes place.

I know they can afford it. They are tearing down a old walmart an putting up a super that makes 3 super's an a regular walmart within 40min of me. An I worked at the one they are getting ready to tear down.

I know they can afford it.

Can they afford a single lawsuit? Sure.

How much litigation can Wal-Mart handle?

Let's examine the bare bones of this case- Early on and this is a bad idea. Oh well...

Here's the way I see it.

Certain assumptions are being made.

This guy decided, whether he had a pre-existing condition or not, to Steal. He then decided, when he got caught, to get violent.

The way I see it, he was fair game at that point. Now he's dead. Death can be a real waste. Especially if it's for a dumb reason.

But how many folks that would have gotten employment in the field will now say, "Hell with that... I don't wanna get charged for a crime for doing my job and I don't wanna be wrapped up in a lawsuit."?

We need more information. & more posters.

More Walmart mischief:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112566&highlight=walmart

More Walmart mischief:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112566&highlight=walmart

Good link. However I'll be very surprised if this goes to a lawsuit, unless the Walmart employees were grossly negligent in their handling of the shoplifter.

Not sure they are allowed to fight with suspects. I would think only a cop can do that.

Not sure they are allowed to fight with suspects. I would think only a cop can do that.

Not allowed to fight with someone who is Violently hitting you?

When things get to that state; It's time to rise up against whoever makes that Not Allowed.

Not allowed to fight with someone who is Violently hitting you?

When things get to that state; It's time to rise up against whoever makes that Not Allowed.

Well that's one way to look at it. But I have to wonder what kind of training Walmart provides to it's low paid security employee's. I'm sure they aren't paid enough to be getting into fights with criminals. If they just let him get into the car and drive away. They could jot down the license number for the police.

If this video is even partly right those security employee's are in big trouble.

Walmart Wants You Dead: How Walmart Screws it's Employees. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik30ijaBgUA&feature=fvwrel)

this sounds like the kind of thing which is just going to have to wait for the coronors inquest to hand down its findings

Well that's one way to look at it. But I have to wonder what kind of training Walmart provides to it's low paid security employee's. I'm sure they aren't paid enough to be getting into fights with criminals. If they just let him get into the car and drive away. They could jot down the license number for the police.
If the guy is swinging punches on you, not running off or driving, you're kinda in the fight, pay or no pay.

Not allowed to fight with someone who is Violently hitting you?

When things get to that state; It's time to rise up against whoever makes that Not Allowed.

From the link posted in the OP:


Police found the suspect restrained by security workers and appearing to need medical attention, Covina police Lt. Holly Francisco told The Associated Press.

________________________________________________

"When the (police) officers arrived, the suspect was being restrained by loss prevention officers," Gomez said, according to the report. "The Covina police officers saw the suspect appeared to be in medical distress and called for paramedics to respond."



Once someone is in that kind of state, they should have called the paramedics instead of restraining him and waiting for police to arrive. Considering he passed away later at the hospital, the security staff should come under some scrutiny as to why they did not get him medical help sooner instead of ignoring his medical distress and continuing to restrain him.



Wal-Mart Stores spokeswoman Dianna Gee says the security personnel have been suspended pending the outcome of an investigation that will include surveillance video and an autopsy to determine the cause of death. It is not clear why security did not call paramedics.

[Source] (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-dies-detained-calif-walmart-16496008#.T86VLMWHxyI)

But I have to wonder what kind of training Walmart provides to it's low paid security employee's.

Well, there's several questions that raise themselves, actually:

1) What is Wal-Mart's actual security policy? Were these guys following policy when they followed, confronted and restrained the victim? You'd imagine that Wal-Mart spends enough on lawyers that their policies, at least on paper, will be pretty airtight from a legal perspective.

2) Does Wal-Mart actually adequately train its security staff in what the policy is and how to implement it, and does it provide for adequate supervision to ensure that they do so?

3) Suppose these guys are just thugs - was Wal-Mart negligent in hiring them and assigning them to security patrol?



I'm sure they aren't paid enough to be getting into fights with criminals.

Shit, they probably don't get paid enough to be getting out of bed in the morning.



If they just let him get into the car and drive away. They could jot down the license number for the police.

My guess is that a sensible policy would be to follow shoplifters, and maybe shout "hey, stop!" but not to physically confront them. We will see...

Bells Ive seen 100s of cases from the US where they will lie on top of someone who is OBVIOUSLY going to need to see the Ambos. For instance after a high speed chase ending in a crash I have seen fooage of the cops litterally pulling the person out of the car and throwing them on the ground and cuffing them with a knee in the back before anyone even thought to call the ambos. In that situation the person should NEVER be taken out of the car until properly assessed unless they do it themselves and even then they should be cautioned NOT to move

If this video is even partly right those security employee's are in big trouble.

Walmart Wants You Dead: How Walmart Screws it's Employees. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik30ijaBgUA&feature=fvwrel)

Follow up:
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/04/03/wal-mart-rethinks-its-move-on-deborah-shank

For those curious about what happened to the Shanks.

Bells: My opinion on the matter is that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks.
I do not pity them: Sorry.
Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks? Or should she have just accepted the rape so that he could get away and then describe him, what she saw of him, to the cops?

Asguard: You're probably right that more needs to be known about this.

Follow up:
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/04/03/wal-mart-rethinks-its-move-on-deborah-shank

For those curious about what happened to the Shanks.


Good find Neverfly.

Follow up:
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/04/03/wal-mart-rethinks-its-move-on-deborah-shank

For those curious about what happened to the Shanks.

Bells: My opinion on the matter is that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks.
I do not pity them: Sorry.
Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks? Or should she have just accepted the rape so that he could get away and then describe him, what she saw of him, to the cops?

Asguard: You're probably right that more needs to be known about this.

A thief is not a rapist, Neverfly.

If you are charged with the responsibility of detaining someone, then you take on all of the responsibilities that come along with that, including ensuring the well-being of the person you're detaining.

A thief is not a rapist, Neverfly.
This is true. But having lost at least $40,000 over a lifetime to thieves, they strike me as pretty bad, anyway.


If you are charged with the responsibility of detaining someone, then you take on all of the responsibilities that come along with that, including ensuring the well-being of the person you're detaining.
Does ensuring the well being of someone who is beating on you count?
Is someone supposed to take the blows for fear of not ensuring the well being of a crook?

The crook took on all the responsibilities of being a thief. That included getting caught.
The crook took on all the responsibilities of what happens to you when you attack multiple security guards.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.

This is true. But having lost at least $40,000 over a lifetime to thieves, they strike me as pretty bad, anyway.

I don't care how they strike you. You equated them to rapists so that you could justify your "let them die" attitude. Without that false equivocation, you can't say death is a fitting punishment.


Does ensuring the well being of someone who is beating on you count?

Yes.


Is someone supposed to take the blows for fear of not ensuring the well being of a crook.

No, they're supposed to be able to subdue the suspect without killing them. A good rule of thumb is if your detainee winds up dead, you probably did something wrong.


The crook took on all the responsibilities of being a thief. That included getting caught.
The crook took on all the responsibilities of what happens to you when you attack multiple security guards.

And that responsibility is death? Since when?



I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.

Nor am I. But I'm not a monster, either.

I don't care how they strike you. You equated them to rapists so that you could justify your "let them die" attitude. Without that false equivocation, you can't say death is a fitting punishment.
It was not a punishment.

It was a result of his actions. If a petty crook stole some gum and then attacked a police officer when he fled and wound up shot- no one would say the police officer punished him for the crime. They would say he defended himself from attack.

That face eating cannibal guy only used a legally sold (at the time) substance and had a feeding frenzy- he wound up dead too. He was not being punished, he was being threatening.


Yes.
No, it does not. In what kind of world do we have to be FORCED to victimize ourselves to crooks? That's an appalling notion.
You try taking good sweet care of a man who is beating on you.

Or you can sit back and let someone like me come along, whose willing to get dirty and do the dirty work you cannot do. But you don't get to cry from the sidelines.


No, they're supposed to be able to subdue the suspect without killing them. A good rule of thumb is if your detainee winds up dead, you probably did something wrong.
Or he did.


And that responsibility is death? Since when?
Since assault allows self defense.

Nor am I. But I'm not a monster, either.
I am.

And so are you if you believe people cannot defend themselves, but must be forced to take attacks and maybe even get killed themselves.

Well that's one way to look at it. But I have to wonder what kind of training Walmart provides to it's low paid security employee's. I'm sure they aren't paid enough to be getting into fights with criminals. If they just let him get into the car and drive away. They could jot down the license number for the police.

Over at the walmart I worked at there was loss prevention. An parking lot security. Now the loss prevention tried to stay distant because they didn't want everyone knowing who they were they worked with cops some were former military an they were paid good.
Now the flip, parking lot security are poorly paid an didn't do much.

And so are you if you believe people cannot defend themselves, but must be forced to take attacks and maybe even get killed themselves.

I think we can all agree that any damage inflicted in legitimate self-defense is just that.

But this situation is much more complicated than a simple self-defense case. For example, I don't see where the rent-a-cops even have a right to detain the guy in the first place. If somebody other than a cop tries to detain you, that is a crime called "kidnapping" and you are justified in using force to escape them - that is legitimate self-defense. Likewise, self-defense doesn't cover restraining the guy after he's subdued either. California is not a "Stand Your Ground" state - self defense includes a duty to retreat, which those guys obviously did not fulfill. I do not think that the rent-a-pigs have any legitimate grounds to claim self-defense - they initiated the encounter, and then detained the guy against his will after using physical force on him.

Also, my understanding of laws regarding citizen's arrest is that they only apply to felonies, generally, and that the crime in question is a misdemeanor. Unless I'm missing something, the rent-a-stormtroopers in this case are headed for prison.

Over at the walmart I worked at there was loss prevention. An parking lot security. Now the loss prevention tried to stay distant because they didn't want everyone knowing who they were they worked with cops some were former military an they were paid good.
Now the flip, parking lot security are poorly paid an didn't do much.

That would suggest Walmart hired people who were already trained to some extent. Also, I don't think they intended to kill anybody. The BS you have to put up with afterward just isn't worth it. But they did and I'm very sure they regret it.

It was not a punishment.

It was a result of his actions. If a petty crook stole some gum and then attacked a police officer when he fled and wound up shot- no one would say the police officer punished him for the crime. They would say he defended himself from attack.

Uh, wrong. If the criminal was unarmed and wound up shot, the officer might find himself out of a job and even perhaps up on charges. There are other means of subduing a suspect than deadly force.


That face eating cannibal guy only used a legally sold (at the time) substance and had a feeding frenzy- he wound up dead too. He was not being punished, he was being threatening.

Again, false equivocation. The face-eating guy was eating someone's face. You think that's the same thing as fighting off some security guards?


No, it does not. In what kind of world do we have to be FORCED to victimize ourselves to crooks? That's an appalling notion.
You try taking good sweet care of a man who is beating on you.

First of all, knock it off. No one said you must allow yourself to be victimized. That's not the same thing as not killing the person who attacks you.


Or you can sit back and let someone like me come along, whose willing to get dirty and do the dirty work you cannot do. But you don't get to cry from the sidelines.

Someone like you? You mean an armchair hero who roots on the thuggery of rentacops while they kill a petty thief? Yeah, you're a regular vigilante. :rolleyes:



Or he did.

Did you not comprehend what I just wrote?


Since assault allows self defense.

The right to defend yourself doesn't mean you get to inflict mortal harm.


I am.

And so are you if you believe people cannot defend themselves, but must be forced to take attacks and maybe even get killed themselves.

Typical that your entire arguments rests on a straw man. I never said a guard couldn't defend himself. I said that they also have a responsibility, and unless that guard's life was in immediate danger, killing a shoplifter is still a crime. I know, I know, you probably just chalk this up to the eugenics you so easily jumped on board with in that other thread, but here in civilized society, we don't justify murder because you got punched in the face.

I think we can all agree that any damage inflicted in legitimate self-defense is just that.


But this situation is much more complicated than a simple self-defense case.
This is likely and we must await more reports. We're all assuming a lot right now...

For example, I don't see where the rent-a-cops even have a right to detain the guy in the first place. If somebody other than a cop tries to detain you, that is a crime called "kidnapping" and you are justified in using force to escape them - that is legitimate self-defense.
This is actually not accurate.
Not only can rent-a-cops detain you, so can private citizens.
It is not considered kidnapping at all and I'd like to know how you got that idea.

Likewise, self-defense doesn't cover restraining the guy after he's subdued either.
Was he subdued?

California is not a "Stand Your Ground" state - self defense includes a duty to retreat, which those guys obviously did not fulfill. I do not think that the rent-a-pigs have any legitimate grounds to claim self-defense - they initiated the encounter, and then detained the guy against his will after using physical force on him.
Pigs?:bugeye:
Besides, some of this has been covered.

They ARE allowed to detain. You can detain someone. Once the cops arrive, you better hope you had good grounds to do so- but you CAN detain someone you believe has committed a crime.

Now, we can check C.A. law and see if it's different there now. I think not. When I lived there, you could detain. And you can here, in T.X.

Uh, wrong. If the criminal was unarmed and wound up shot, the officer might find himself out of a job and even perhaps up on charges. There are other means of subduing a suspect than deadly force.

Again, false equivocation. The face-eating guy was eating someone's face. You think that's the same thing as fighting off some security guards?
Not only unarmed- but naked. He didn't even touch the cop.


First of all, knock it off. No one said you must allow yourself to be victimized. That's not the same thing as not killing the person who attacks you.
The same?
Knock what off?
You imply that if someone is beating on you, you're not permitted to defend yourself.

The rest of your post is vague assumptions, ad homs and your typical flaming bullshit.
I won't bother with it.

Now, apparently you don't know what "Possible pre-existing condition" means.

We do not yet know what happened. They did not shoot, knife or throw grenades. He assaulted them and they responded.

My only point was my lack of sympathy. You can say I'm a monster- I admit that I am.
I'm not armchair- I'm U.S. Army. I've been in combat. I Am A Monster.
So you can type your fingers to the bone, blue in the face if it makes you feel better. I do not care.

Maybe if facts come to light that the thief was stealing clothes for his dying child in the hospital, he was assaulted b security with clubs and begged for his life- I will change my stance.
But as it is NOW- I'm not particularly sympathetic.

Not only unarmed- but naked. He didn't even touch the cop.

He was eating the guy's face. The cop wasn't protecting himself, he was protecting the guy whose face was being eaten.




You imply that if someone is beating on you, you're not permitted to defend yourself.

I implied no such thing. I said that there are conditions to self-defense, and one of them is unless your life is in danger, you don't have the right to off and kill someone. If I punch you in the face, you don't get to just kill me. You know this, you know this is what I'm saying, so stop pretending you don't.


The rest of your post is vague assumptions, ad homs and your typical flaming bullshit.
I won't bother with it.

Where did I ad hom? See, this is typical. Your point is defeated, you're reduced to straw men, and now you go on the attack. You're the one who said I was "crying from the sidelines" and "wouldn't get my hands dirty." I made no such assumptions about you.


Now, apparently you don't know what "Possible pre-existing condition" means.

Of course I do. If it turns out that the guards did nothing wrong, then they did nothing wrong. I didn't say they definitely did something wrong (though it's quite possible they did), I'm challenging your assertion that the guards would have the right to kill him for attacking them. This is what you've said.


We do not yet know what happened. They did not shoot, knife or throw grenades. He assaulted them and they responded.

And he's dead. To say that this is an expected or acceptable outcome is premature.


My only point was my lack of sympathy. You can say I'm a monster- I admit that I am.

That wasn't your only point. Go back and read your posts. You equivocate killing the man with self-defense. To you, they should be able to kill him for attacking. That's what you're saying.


I'm not armchair- I'm U.S. Army. I've been in combat. I Am A Monster.

So in your mind, a shoplifter is no different than, what, the Fedayeen Saddam? I would suggest some counselling if you can't differentiate a Wal-Mart parking lot from Fallujah.

[quote]So you can type your fingers to the bone, blue in the face if it makes you feel better. I do not care.

Maybe if facts come to light that the thief was stealing clothes for his dying child in the hospital, he was assaulted b security with clubs and begged for his life- I will change my stance.
But as it is NOW- I'm not particularly sympathetic.

I don't care how sympathetic you are. I only care that you understand that the guards don't have the right to simply kill someone for resisting.

He was eating the guy's face. The cop wasn't protecting himself, he was protecting the guy whose face was being eaten.
Eating a face, beating a face, what's the difference?


I implied no such thing. I said that there are conditions to self-defense, and one of them is unless your life is in danger, you don't have the right to off and kill someone. If I punch you in the face, you don't get to just kill me. You know this, you know this is what I'm saying, so stop pretending you don't.
So, they did not off and kill someone. Although he did die.
What happens if you defend yourself from a mugger whose, beating on your face, wanting your wallet- You slug him and his fragile little neck breaks or you hit his nose in the right spot and jam bone fragments into his brain?
He had it comin.'


Where did I ad hom? See, this is typical. Your point is defeated, you're reduced to straw men, and now you go on the attack. You're the one who said I was "crying from the sidelines" and "wouldn't get my hands dirty." I made no such assumptions about you.
And, as usual- you deny that you said what you said... Sheesh...
Armchair hero counts as ad hom and an assumption, JDawg. It is an assumption and accusation of my character. Further denials from you will be ignored.


And he's dead. To say that this is an expected or acceptable outcome is premature.
True- we can await further reports. My sympathy meter is still bottomed out though. Maybe that will change.


That wasn't your only point. Go back and read your posts. You equivocate killing the man with self-defense. To you, they should be able to kill him for attacking. That's what you're saying.
Nope. I said he wound up dead.
There's a difference.


I don't care how sympathetic you are. I only care that you understand that the guards don't have the right to simply kill someone for resisting.
As far as we know- They didn't.

J-dawg. Neverfly. Are you two butting heads AGAIN... Take it somewhere else.

Please. Ok

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? People get beaten all the time, usually it doesn't result in death. My ex-husband beat the hell out of me when I was married to him,often, but it never resulted in my death. When beating to death happens it is usually extreme. I have a hard time imagining security guards beating a man to death, with bystanders watching, and no one stepping in to stop them.

It's my guess, in normal circumstances, their actions would not have ended in death and there was probably no reason they should have expected it would. I think it is likely this guy had some other issues. Maybe he was high? Maybe he had a heart condition? Maybe he was choking on hard candy... or maybe the guards got over zealous and the bystanders didn't care enough to help the guy. Or maybe it was a simple accident and they didn't realize how hard they were squeezing him. Who knows? We certainly don't. We are feeding into the trollish bullshit the media does. Accepting what little tidbits of skewed information they feed us and then run with the first assumptions we come to.

Why don't we just chill out and wait for more information.

The only thing I can see wrong with this is what Bells pointed out, why did they not call paramedics right away? Why were they not aware of his condition? Were they not trained to recognize medical distress? If this is the case then their training needs serious scrutiny.

I simply do not see any evidence to support that they intentionally killed the guy. Nor do I see anyone saying that they should have. I see the suggestions that if the guy died as a result of reasonable action against him, then it is his own fault. Most shoplifters stop once the guards have made an attempt to detain them. Usually if they fight the guards so violently, they are hopped up on drugs. Most thieves know that resisting will only bring on stiffer charges. Something was wrong with this guy. and yes maybe the guards messed up. But jumping down each others throats for coming to different conclusions is ridiculous considering not one of us knows what happened.

It's my guess, in normal circumstances, their actions would not have ended in death and there was probably no reason they should have expected it would. I think it is likely this guy had some other issues. Maybe he was high? Maybe he had a heart condition?
You're not the first to ask: The article points this possibility out- presumably from the police report- we don't know yet.


Why were they not aware of his condition? Were they not trained to recognize medical distress? If this is the case then their training needs serious scrutiny.
There are many medical conditions they could not be expected to be aware of.

Bells: My opinion on the matter is that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks.
He was suspected of shoplifting.

They confronted him in the carpark, he resisted and they tackled him to the ground and kept him restrained until the police arrived, whereupon the police noticed he was in medical distress and requested paramedics, whereupon he died shortly after in hospital.

Are you possibly suggesting that rent-a-cops in supermarkets are now allowed to take the law into their own hands and inflict the death penalty on people they suspect are shoplifting? You don't think he should have had a right to a day in court? Or do you think that security guards should be allowed to ignore the detained obvious medical distress and let them die?



I do not pity them: Sorry.
You also do not respect that everyone has their right to defend themselves in court and you also do not respect the law or the rules by which Walmart subject their staff to:


"Associates are trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at risk," Gee said. "That being said, this is an active investigation and we are working with law enforcement and providing them information."


[Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/man-dies-after-fight-with_n_1570121.html)]



So they are trained to "disengage" from any situation which could result in putting others and themselves at risk?


He resisted them and they began fighting. They were able to get him down on the ground and that’s when the Covina police officers arrived.”

Officers found Picazo in need of medical help and called paramedics.

[Source (http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-walmart-shoplifter-death,0,1993022.story)]



Why didn't they follow the rules and "disengage" and call the paramedics?


Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks? Or should she have just accepted the rape so that he could get away and then describe him, what she saw of him, to the cops?
Pathetic strawman and a really bad attempt to appeal to one's emotions.

Are you saying that if a rapist is injured by his victim, he should be denied medical help? What if he is dying, like this suspected shoplifter? Let him die? Who makes that decision?

Are you saying that you would deny someone medical help because they may have done something wrong, such as in the case of this individual?


This is true. But having lost at least $40,000 over a lifetime to thieves, they strike me as pretty bad, anyway.

A rape is worth $40,000?


Does ensuring the well being of someone who is beating on you count?
Is someone supposed to take the blows for fear of not ensuring the well being of a crook?
They had beaten him down to the ground and were restraining them on the ground.

He was in clear enough medical distress that when the police arrived shortly after, they immediately noticed his medical distress and called for the paramedics. He died soon after at the hospital.

They are supposedly trained to "disengage from situations that put themselves or others at risk". So why did they not follow their training?


The crook took on all the responsibilities of being a thief. That included getting caught.
The crook took on all the responsibilities of what happens to you when you attack multiple security guards.

He hasn't been proven to be a thief. He was suspected of shoplifting.

Are security guards now judge, jury and executioners now?


I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.
Until the day you go to a store and forget to pay for something, walk out, get tackled to the ground on the mere suspicion.


It was not a punishment.
So what was it?

The security guards disregarded their own training and put another life at risk, so much so that he died.


It was a result of his actions. If a petty crook stole some gum and then attacked a police officer when he fled and wound up shot- no one would say the police officer punished him for the crime. They would say he defended himself from attack.
They didn't shoot him though, did they?

They restrained him to the ground as he went into medical distress, they did not call the paramedics and he later died in hospitals after the police arrived and immediately called for one. They ignored their training and put another person at risk in the course of their duties.


That face eating cannibal guy only used a legally sold (at the time) substance and had a feeding frenzy- he wound up dead too. He was not being punished, he was being threatening.

Really?

Clutching at straws much?


No, it does not. In what kind of world do we have to be FORCED to victimize ourselves to crooks? That's an appalling notion.
You try taking good sweet care of a man who is beating on you.

Or you can sit back and let someone like me come along, whose willing to get dirty and do the dirty work you cannot do. But you don't get to cry from the sidelines.
Three security guards against one person.. what a beat down..

What kind of world do we live in if people think it is acceptable to let people die because they might be a "crook" instead of allowing them their day in court?


Since assault allows self defense.
He was restrained by 3 security guards on the ground and in medical distress.

You really want to go with that argument?


I am.

And so are you if you believe people cannot defend themselves, but must be forced to take attacks and maybe even get killed themselves.
I guess we should keep in mind and remember that you seem to believe that anyone in a position of authority can simply kill anyone they suspect of doing something wrong and get away with it..

Bells has already destroyed your position better than I could, but I'll give this one more go.


Eating a face, beating a face, what's the difference?

Really? Really?

C'mon. That's beyond stupid.


So, they did not off and kill someone. Although he did die.

Interesting that you've already decided that they didn't do something to contribute to his death--aka Kill him. As Bells pointed out, they went beyond their orders to restrain the suspect.


What happens if you defend yourself from a mugger whose, beating on your face, wanting your wallet- You slug him and his fragile little neck breaks or you hit his nose in the right spot and jam bone fragments into his brain?
He had it comin.'

Sure. But again, this is a straw man, because that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a suspected shoplifter trying to get away from some guards. This is not the same as a violent mugging, much as your disgusting and brutal position requires it to be so.


And, as usual- you deny that you said what you said... Sheesh...
Armchair hero counts as ad hom and an assumption, JDawg. It is an assumption and accusation of my character. Further denials from you will be ignored.

Oh, that's right, I forget that you stretch definitions to suit your purposes. I again made the mistake of assuming I was debating someone with integrity.

And keep in mind that this comment was made after your assertion that I was "crying on the sidelines" and not willing to "get my hands dirty." But by all means, let's overlook that so you can bitch and moan about your perceived slight.


True- we can await further reports. My sympathy meter is still bottomed out though. Maybe that will change.

Probably not. You've already drawn your own conclusions in spite of reports to the contrary, so I don't think anything that comes out is going to change your mind. You like the idea of criminals getting your brand of justice, so that's what this will always be in your eyes.


Nope. I said he wound up dead.
There's a difference.

No. Please try to keep up, Neverfly. I said that they have a responsibility both morally and legally to not kill the suspect, and you said that this amounts to allowing ourselves to be victimized, as if you can't see the gap between "proper and effective restraint" and "deadly force."


As far as we know- They didn't.

Well, they went beyond their duties and he ended up dead, so that comment is incorrect.

You're not the first to ask: The article points this possibility out- presumably from the police report- we don't know yet.

There are many medical conditions they could not be expected to be aware of.

I was only referring to his immediate condition. Meaning his appearance. The article suggests that his appearance alone alerted the police to suspect he was in medical distress. So if they could tell by looking at him that he needed medical attention, it leaves you to wonder why the guards couldn't tell. Maybe the signs were so subtle that only trained personnel could recognize them. Or maybe the guards just weren't paying attention or didn't care. Those are the questions that need answered.

inflict the death penalty on people
No. But that's not what happened.
Talk about Straw men.

I'm not going to play this game with you Bells. The guy was in the act of a crime and he got Violent. You ignore that bit, huh?
We disagree. Big damned whoop. I have no idea why you get so overly-emotional in these debates.


Why didn't they follow the rules and "disengage" and call the paramedics?
That's not my problem.


Are you saying that if a rapist is injured by his victim, he should be denied medical help? What if he is dying, like this suspected shoplifter? Let him die? Who makes that decision?
You love to put words in peoples mouths when you debate them.



Are you saying that you would deny someone medical help because they may have done something wrong, such as in the case of this individual?
Nope. Never said anything of the kind.

Nor did they "Deny him help." You're distorting the facts. That's intellectual dishonesty.

They restrained him and Police were on the way. No one was denying him anything other than the ability to Run Away.


He hasn't been proven to be a thief. He was suspected of shoplifting.
They are not proven to have "Beaten him to the ground" as you claim. The news said only that he turned violent and a fight broke out.

Talk about straw men.



You really want to go with that argument?


I guess we should keep in mind and remember that you seem to believe that anyone in a position of authority can simply kill anyone they suspect of doing something wrong and get away with it..
Straw man and putting words in my mouth.
I'll play the same game, Bells.
Are you saying that it's OK for someone committing a crime to act in violence and whoever is being violently attacked should TAKE the physical abuse?

JDawg: Just more ad homs and bull crap from you. I won't bother.

allowed to take the law into their own hands and inflict the death penalty on people they suspect are shoplifting?
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.



You also do not respect that everyone has their right to defend themselves in court and you also do not respect the law or the rules by which Walmart subject their staff to:

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.



"Associates are trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at risk," Gee said. "That being said, this is an active investigation and we are working with law enforcement and providing them information."


[Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/man-dies-after-fight-with_n_1570121.html)]



So they are trained to "disengage" from any situation which could result in putting others and themselves at risk?

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.



He resisted them and they began fighting. They were able to get him down on the ground and that’s when the Covina police officers arrived.”

Officers found Picazo in need of medical help and called paramedics.

[Source (http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-walmart-shoplifter-death,0,1993022.story)]

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.


Why didn't they follow the rules and "disengage" and call the paramedics? This is the question of the day.



Pathetic strawman and a really bad attempt to appeal to one's emotions.

Are you saying that if a rapist is injured by his victim, he should be denied medical help? What if he is dying, like this suspected shoplifter? Let him die? Who makes that decision?

Are you saying that you would deny someone medical help because they may have done something wrong, such as in the case of this individual?
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.



A rape is worth $40,000? Huh? Non Sequitur?



They had beaten him down to the ground and were restraining them on the ground.

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.


He was in clear enough medical distress that when the police arrived shortly after, they immediately noticed his medical distress and called for the paramedics. He died soon after at the hospital. 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.


They are supposedly trained to "disengage from situations that put themselves or others at risk". So why did they not follow their training? Again, this really is THE question.



He hasn't been proven to be a thief. He was suspected of shoplifting. 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 security guards now judge, jury and executioners now? Are we the judge and jury of the guards? Innocent until proven guilty. Remember?



Until the day you go to a store and forget to pay for something, walk out, get tackled to the ground on the mere suspicion. 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.



So what was it?

The security guards disregarded their own training and put another life at risk, so much so that he died. 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?


They restrained him to the ground as he went into medical distress, they did not call the paramedics and he later died in hospitals after the police arrived and immediately called for one. They ignored their training and put another person at risk in the course of their duties. 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.




Three security guards against one person.. what a beat down.. 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.


What kind of world do we live in if people think it is acceptable to let people die because they might be a "crook" instead of allowing them their day in court? 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.




He was restrained by 3 security guards on the ground and in medical distress. 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.



I guess we should keep in mind and remember that you seem to believe that anyone in a position of authority can simply kill anyone they suspect of doing something wrong and get away with it.. 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.

No. But that's not what happened.
Talk about Straw men.



The man is dead, isn't he?


I'm not going to play this game with you Bells. The guy was in the act of a crime and he got Violent. You ignore that bit, huh?
He was suspected of shoplifting.

The notion of innocent until proven guilty is a foreign concept for you?


We disagree. Big damned whoop. I have no idea why you get so overly-emotional in these debates.
Right..

Are you going to keep telling us what a monster you are, etc?

I asked you some simple questions. You are the one who is over-emotional and angry.

Do not project.


That's not my problem.

Of course not. And yet here you are debating this subject.

Why are you here then?

I mean you have spent considerable time and effort defending 3 security guards who restrained someone on the ground until he went into medical distress and later died. You appear to make it your problem because you seem to believe:


My opinion on the matter is that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks.

You have already determined the deceased as a "thief, robber, crock", not to mention attempted to compare him to a rapist and a cannibal.

All this, on the simple suspicion that he was a shoplifter.


You love to put words in peoples mouths when you debate them.
Really?

You want to go there?


Bells: My opinion on the matter is that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks.


Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks? Or should she have just accepted the rape so that he could get away and then describe him, what she saw of him, to the cops?


Does ensuring the well being of someone who is beating on you count?
Is someone supposed to take the blows for fear of not ensuring the well being of a crook?


No, it does not. In what kind of world do we have to be FORCED to victimize ourselves to crooks? That's an appalling notion.
You try taking good sweet care of a man who is beating on you.

Or you can sit back and let someone like me come along, whose willing to get dirty and do the dirty work you cannot do. But you don't get to cry from the sidelines.


This guy decided, whether he had a pre-existing condition or not, to Steal. He then decided, when he got caught, to get violent.

The way I see it, he was fair game at that point. Now he's dead.

You put the words in your own mouth.

If you don't like how they sound to your ears, the solution is simple, shut up.


Nope. Never said anything of the kind.

Nor did they "Deny him help." You're distorting the facts. That's intellectual dishonesty.

They restrained him and Police were on the way. No one was denying him anything other than the ability to Run Away.
They restrained him until he died.

They were under an obligation, from their employer, to "disengage" if their actions were going to put the lives of others and themselves at risk. They restrained him, when he was obviously clearly visibly in medical distress (since the police could tell immediately upon arrival that something was wrong, it would have to have been visible). As for never having said anything of the kind, read what you wrote and the context in which you put it in and then talk to me about "intellectual dishonesty" and "distorting the facts". If you can't remember, here, I'll even link what I was responding to:


Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks? Or should she have just accepted the rape so that he could get away and then describe him, what she saw of him, to the cops?

So please, can it.


They are not proven to have "Beaten him to the ground" as you claim. The news said only that he turned violent and a fight broke out.

Talk about straw men.

Says the man who brings up cannibals and rapists in this discussion...


He resisted them and they began fighting. They were able to get him down on the ground and that’s when the Covina police officers arrived.”

Officers found Picazo in need of medical help and called paramedics.


[Source (http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-walmart-shoplifter-death,0,1993022.story)]



Do you think they tickled him to the ground?


Straw man and putting words in my mouth.
I'll play the same game, Bells.
Really. This from the man who argued for over half a dozen pages that it was logical for the black kid to go and speak to the stranger following him in a car and on foot and then tried to blame the kid for being shot because you believed, against all evidence to the contrary, that the shooter was wearing a uniform and driving a marked car.

We have been here before Neverfly.


Are you saying that it's OK for someone committing a crime to act in violence and whoever is being violently attacked should TAKE the physical abuse?
He was suspected of committing a crime.

Secondly, the security guards are supposedly trained to "disengage" and it is company policy that they disengage if their actions are putting others in danger. They failed to do so and instead, they restrained him on the ground while he was in such extreme medical distress that he died shortly after.

Thirdly, self defense does not mean that it is right to kill someone right off the bat. He was being restrained by 3 people. He was in medical distress. At that point, he was no longer a danger to anyone else. Even if stand your ground rules applied in this case, which it does not, he had ceased to be a danger to the 3 security guards involved once they had him on the ground and especially once he had gone into medical distress.

So you may want to rethink your argument some more.

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.

The man is dead, isn't he?
This does not mean that they "inflicted the death penalty."


He was suspected of shoplifting.

The notion of innocent until proven guilty is a foreign concept for you?
Zimmerman? You treated him in that thread as guilty until proven innocent.


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



You have already determined the deceased as a "thief, robber, crock",
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.


Really?

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

Originally Posted by Bells
inflict the death penalty on people
That's not what happened.

Originally Posted by Bells
Are you saying that if a rapist is injured by his victim, he should be denied medical help? What if he is dying, like this suspected shoplifter? Let him die? Who makes that decision?
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?

Originally Posted by Bells
I guess we should keep in mind and remember that you seem to believe that anyone in a position of authority can simply kill anyone they suspect of doing something wrong and get away with it..

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.


They restrained him until he died.
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.


They were under an obligation, from their employer, to "disengage" if their actions were going to put the lives of others and themselves at risk.
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.


He resisted them and they began fighting. They were able to get him down on the ground and that’s when the Covina police officers arrived.”
It doesn't say "Beaten to the ground" now does it?


Really. This from the man who argued for over half a dozen pages that it was logical for the black kid to go and speak to the stranger following him in a car and on foot and then tried to blame the kid for being shot because you believed, against all evidence to the contrary, that the shooter was wearing a uniform and driving a marked car.
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.


Thirdly, self defense does not mean that it is right to kill someone right off the bat. He was being restrained by 3 people. He was in medical distress. At that point, he was no longer a danger to anyone else.
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.

They restrained him until he died. Not true. He died in the hospital. Not on the scene.



So please, can it.


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



Says the man who brings up cannibals and rapists in this discussion... 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.



He resisted them and they began fighting. They were able to get him down on the ground and that’s when the Covina police officers arrived.”

Officers found Picazo in need of medical help and called paramedics.


[Source (http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-walmart-shoplifter-death,0,1993022.story)]


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 they tickled him to the ground? 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.



Really. This from the man who argued for over half a dozen pages that it was logical for the black kid to go and speak to the stranger following him in a car and on foot and then tried to blame the kid for being shot because you believed, against all evidence to the contrary, that the shooter was wearing a uniform and driving a marked car. 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?


Secondly, the security guards are supposedly trained to "disengage" and it is company policy that they disengage if their actions are putting others in danger. They failed to do so and instead, they restrained him on the ground while he was in such extreme medical distress that he died shortly after. 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.


Thirdly, self defense does not mean that it is right to kill someone right off the bat. He was being restrained by 3 people. He was in medical distress. At that point, he was no longer a danger to anyone else. Even if stand your ground rules applied in this case, which it does not, he had ceased to be a danger to the 3 security guards involved once they had him on the ground and especially once he had gone into medical distress.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.



So you may want to rethink your argument some more.You may want to rethink your assumptions a little more.

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.

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 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.



Well according to Neverfly (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2943978&postcount=20), "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks".. when I said (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2943968&postcount=17): "Considering he passed away later at the hospital, the security staff should come under some scrutiny as to why they did not get him medical help sooner instead of ignoring his medical distress and continuing to restrain him."..

I was responding to him and his point..


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.
Then I would suggest you brush up on your reading and comprehension and go back over what I wrote and what I was responding to.

His comment was that he does not pity the deceased man because to him, he is a criminal. Hence why I said that he obviously does not respect the laws which state that everyone deserves their day in court and also the laws and regulations the security guards are governed by in the manner in which they carry out their duties.

If you see what you are claiming I said in that, then yes, I do think you need to brush up on your reading and comprehension.


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.

So you think they had good reason to restrain the man until he died?

Because what they did was to get physical with him when he resisted their attempts to restrain him and a fight broke out. When the police arrived, he was being restrained by the 3 guards on the ground and in visible medical distress. He died shortly after in hospital.

Their employer was clear. They are trained and required to disengage immediately if someone is in danger form their actions. They failed to do so and someone is now dead. There is no good reason for their going against policy. I'm sorry, but some clothes and a bottle of shower gel that he was suspected of stealing is not valid reason to restrain someone until they die.


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.


And recently, we saw an innocent teenager killed because he ran, resisted and then fought back. You may want to rethink that statement.

Innocent people fight back all the time.

But you also appear to be disregarding 'innocent until proven guilty'. Neverfly's argument is based on his automatic guilt, when there is no proof that he was guilty.


This is the question of the day.
Maybe you should ask Mr "I am a Monster" Neverfly what he thinks of that?

Since he seems to believe that "this is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks".


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.

I see..


Once someone is in that kind of state, they should have called the paramedics instead of restraining him and waiting for police to arrive. Considering he passed away later at the hospital, the security staff should come under some scrutiny as to why they did not get him medical help sooner instead of ignoring his medical distress and continuing to restrain him.

Post #17 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2943968&postcount=17)



Bells: My opinion on the matter is that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks.
I do not pity them: Sorry.
Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks? Or should she have just accepted the rape so that he could get away and then describe him, what she saw of him, to the cops?

Post #20 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2943978&postcount=20)


Maybe you didn't check well enough.


Huh? Non Sequitur?
Again, you might want to tell that to Neverfly after he compared a suspected shoplifter to a rapist and a cannibal.


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.
Interesting.

So how do you think they restrained him to the ground?



The family was told by the hospital that Picazo had bumps and scrapes on his face as well as some bruising, Picazo's brother, Frank Picazo said.

[Source] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/man-dies-after-fight-with_n_1570121.html)



Do you think they tickled him to the ground?


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.
Even Walmart cannot respond as to why their employers had not called the paramedics because it was apparently obvious enough that the man was in distress that when the police arrived, they called for the paramedics.


Wal-Mart Stores spokeswoman Dianna Gee says the security personnel have been suspended pending the outcome of an investigation that will include surveillance video and an autopsy to determine the cause of death. It is not clear why security did not call paramedics.

[source (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-dies-detained-calif-walmart-16496008#.T86VLMWHxyI)]



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.
That's what you got from my comment to Neverfly?

Since you went out so far, do you feel sympathy for a man who is restrained by trained security guards who ignore his obvious medical distress and that man later dies in hospital because he is suspected of shoplifting?

Or do you believe as Neverfly does, and thing "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks"?


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.
And yet I do not see you castigating Neverfly for assuming he is guilty of being a 'thief, robber and crook'?


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.
And you are again reading more into what I have actually written to Neverfly.

__________________________________________________ _________

Neverfly


This does not mean that they "inflicted the death penalty."
Again, the man is dead and "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks"...


Zimmerman? You treated him in that thread as guilty until proven innocent.
Nope, had you read the thread from the start, you'd have seen that I was pushing for the case to go to trial.

There is a difference.


Uhh... No, not really. You consider a few posts, literally a few, to be considerable time and effort?
Intellectual dishonesty, Bells...
Do you even know what that means?


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.
He was confronted in the carpark by the security guards. No one has established that he had stolen anything at all.

But you established his guilt and determined him guilty without any proof whatsoever.

AS for Zimmerman, refer to above.


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


that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks

When even the article states that they suspected him of shoplifting.


That's not what happened.
They restrained a man who then went into obvious medical distress and did not call the paramedics - even Walmart are saying it is not clear why they had failed to call the paramedics or disengage as they were trained and required to do...


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?
That's not what you said?


Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks? Or should she have just accepted the rape so that he could get away and then describe him, what she saw of him, to the cops?


You see, your argument in this thread constitutes intellectual dishonesty.

I'll give you time to figure it out..


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.
And you do not know that he is guilty, yet you labelled him as a 'thief, robber and crook', compared him to a rapist and a cannibal.

Do you suffer form short term memory loss?

Because you seem to forget the things you write on this site and then get angry when you are queried about them.

What we do know is that he was restrained by security guards who failed to call the paramedics when he went into medical distress and he later died in hospital.

What we do know is that the security guards disregarded their training and the policies of their employer to disengage when it is clear that someone is at risk.


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.
Yep.

And they got into a fight with him, restrained him, he went into medical distress, they ignored that, the police arrived, called the paramedics and he died in hospital a short time later. The hospital advised the family that he had bruises, abrasions and bumps on him..

So is this "what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks"?

You know, I have seen security restrain people and yes, they do have to ensure that person's safety and wellbeing. I have seen security guards found guilty of murder after they "restrained" someone and that someone died later on in hospital.


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.

And yet, you are so sure that the man was guilty, so much so that you likened him to a rapist and a cannibal?


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



The family was told by the hospital that Picazo had bumps and scrapes on his face as well as some bruising, Picazo's brother, Frank Picazo said.

[Source] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/man-dies-after-fight-with_n_1570121.html)



Again, do you think he was tickled to the ground?


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.
Nope.

Here is the first statement I made in this thread, to which you responded with "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks":


Once someone is in that kind of state, they should have called the paramedics instead of restraining him and waiting for police to arrive. Considering he passed away later at the hospital, the security staff should come under some scrutiny as to why they did not get him medical help sooner instead of ignoring his medical distress and continuing to restrain him.

I understand how some things might be hard for you to comprehend..


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.
Again, once they would have clearly seen he was in medical distress, their first priority should have been to call the paramedics as per their training and their employer's standard of practice..

But hey, "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks", right?




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.
So anyone who disagrees with you and questions you on your comments is engaged in a flamewar with you?

Interesting...

Over-reacting and presumptuous.. You are the one who compared a man suspected of shoplifting to a rapist and a cannibal.. Then started going on about how you were in combat and the whole "I am a Monster" stuff.. Really Neverfly, get a hold of yourself.

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.

So anyone who disagrees with you and questions you on your comments is engaged in a flamewar with you?

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

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.

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...

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

Tactics is what you call questioning your comparing a suspected shoplifter to a rapist and a cannibal?

Righteo...

Tactics is what you call questioning your comparing a suspected shoplifter to a rapist and a cannibal?

Righteo...
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.

I was responding to him and his point..

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?



Then I would suggest you brush up on your reading and comprehension and go back over what I wrote and what I was responding to. I will redirect you to this statement shortly.


His comment was that he does not pity the deceased man because to him, he is a criminal. 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.


Hence why I said that he obviously does not respect the laws which state that everyone deserves their day in court and also the laws and regulations the security guards are governed by in the manner in which they carry out their duties.

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.


If you see what you are claiming I said in that, then yes, I do think you need to brush up on your reading and comprehension. yeah this still makes me laugh, I will explain why shortly.



So you think they had good reason to restrain the man until he died? No, I don't. And they didn't. He was alive when the police arrived and he died in the hospital.


Because what they did was to get physical with him when he resisted their attempts to restrain him and a fight broke out. When the police arrived, he was being restrained by the 3 guards on the ground and in visible medical distress. He died shortly after in 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.


Their employer was clear. They are trained and required to disengage immediately if someone is in danger form their actions. They failed to do so and someone is now dead. There is no good reason for their going against policy. 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.


I'm sorry, but some clothes and a bottle of shower gel that he was suspected of stealing is not valid reason to restrain someone until they die.

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.





And recently, we saw an innocent teenager killed because he ran, resisted and then fought back. You may want to rethink that statement.

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.


Innocent people fight back all the time.

But you also appear to be disregarding 'innocent until proven guilty'. Neverfly's argument is based on his automatic guilt, when there is no proof that he was guilty.

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.



Since he seems to believe that "this is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks".

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.





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.


So how do you think they restrained him to the ground?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.




The family was told by the hospital that Picazo had bumps and scrapes on his face as well as some bruising, Picazo's brother, Frank Picazo said.

[Source] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/man-dies-after-fight-with_n_1570121.html)

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.



Do you think they tickled him to the ground?Absolutely not, but I don't think they beat him either.



Even Walmart cannot respond as to why their employers had not called the paramedics because it was apparently obvious enough that the man was in distress that when the police arrived, they called for the paramedics.


Wal-Mart Stores spokeswoman Dianna Gee says the security personnel have been suspended pending the outcome of an investigation that will include surveillance video and an autopsy to determine the cause of death. It is not clear why security did not call paramedics.

[source (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-dies-detained-calif-walmart-16496008#.T86VLMWHxyI)]

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.


That's what you got from my comment to Neverfly? Am I required to judge people the way you do?


Since you went out so far, do you feel sympathy for a man who is restrained by trained security guards who ignore his obvious medical distress and that man later dies in hospital because he is suspected of shoplifting? yes but the situation you are describing is not the situation in the OP.


Or do you believe as Neverfly does, and thing "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks"?

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.



And yet I do not see you castigating Neverfly for assuming he is guilty of being a 'thief, robber and crook'?

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?





And you are again reading more into what I have actually written to Neverfly.
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.

@Neverfly- stop assuming the suspect was guilty of shoplifting
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:

LOS ANGELES — Jose Marcos Picazo called his father and told him he was going shopping for clothes at Walmart and planned to see him the next day for lunch.

Several hours later, Picazo, accused of shoplifting, was dead after authorities said he fought with store security workers who detained him in a parking lot.

Questions remained for Picazo's family four days after his death, including whether the actions taken by store security were appropriate.

"He didn't have any reason to steal. He had the money," Picazo's mother, Rosa Picazo, told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "It doesn't make any sense."

And this...

She added that her husband had seen Picazo a day before his death and he seemed fine. However, Picazo was admitted to a hospital that same day for an unspecified medical condition. He was released that day with a clean bill of health, she said.
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?

Police called paramedics, but the man was pronounced dead at the hospital. It was unclear whether his death was a result of the struggle or due to a pre-existent condition.


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.
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.

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.

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.


The way I see it, he was fair game at that point.

Oops! :o

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?

Can you please show me where, exactly, did I say that they had intended to kill the suspect?

At no time did I make such a claim.

Do I believe they intended to kill him? No.


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.
He was stating that because he was a criminal, according to him, he deserved no pity, in fact, he went so far as to say that "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks". I begged to differ. I am allowed to have different opinion to Neverfly. Neverfly seems to believe that it was somehow acceptable (if his manner of arguing in this thread is any indication) because to him, "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks".

The article was clear.

He was suspected of shoplifting.

How exactly does that suggest he was already a criminal?


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.

You do realise it is illegal to deny suspects medical care, don't you?

If I was to take your argument at face value, then the security guards did not have to pity him to call the paramedics. They should have done it because it was the right thing to do, and also because they are trained to disengage as soon as someone is at risk. They had a responsibility as security guards to ensure their suspect was safe as well as restrained. If your appeal to emotion by bringing your son into the equation is to be taken seriously, then even without pity, they were still required to do the right thing regardless of how stupid the suspect had been.


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

I shall rephrase it.

Do you think it was acceptable that they restrained him and ignored his medical distress and failed to call the paramedics (even Walmart advised they had not called the paramedics and did not know why they had not)?


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.

The quote was:


"He resisted them and they began fighting. They were able to get him down on the ground and that’s when the Covina police officers arrived.”

To me that says they got him down on the ground and it was after that that the police arrived. And the 'they began fighting' indicates they also fought back instead of merely restraining him.


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.

And yet, even their employer disagrees with you and their policies are clear.

That much of "fact" we do know.


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.

He was suspected of shoplifting. That is all.

Each time you leave the store, and if you forgot to pay something, you are suspected of shoplifting. Do you think it would be acceptable that you are instantly assumed to be guilty?


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.
You are equating the death of a man to a fairy tale?


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.

Touche..

As I said in my first post in this thread. The moment he went into medical distress, they should have done the right thing and as their employer and training dictates and disengaged. They failed to do so.


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.

Wow..

And I have seen people killed with one blow to the head. No bruising or marks.

How many bruises you don't have is not indicative that it didn't kill you either.


Absolutely not, but I don't think they beat him either.
As the police advised, they started to fight...


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.
And yet, they stated their policy was that their security staff are trained to disengage as soon as others and others are at risk..


Am I required to judge people the way you do?
So questioning and debating him is judging him?

I didn't realise he was such a snowflake that no one was allowed to question him or disagree with his assessment...


yes but the situation you are describing is not the situation in the OP.
Are you saying they did not get into a fight, whereupon they restrained him, he went into medical distress, police arrived and noticed he was in medical distress, called the paramedics where he then died shortly later in hospital?


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.

The character I am creating? You mean the man suspected of shoplifting?

That is a character I am creating?

Righteo..


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?
Right..

Who, exactly, do you think you're talking to?


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.

And I believe I answered them. Multiple times.


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.

Seagypsy, can you please stop trying to insinuate that I am somehow emotionally compromised?

I do not know you and you do not know me. So please, cease and desist. You are not only being insulting, but also very rude.

Thank you.

If debating Neverfly makes one automatically emotionally charged, then this whole forum would be emotionally charged. I would suggest you stop parroting him and cease and desist with that particular accusation.

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.

I know.

It's kind of funny.

And sweet..

What makes this whole thread funny is that he starts it all, usually does, and then complains when he gets the responses he deserves.. Responses that question and query his arguments.. But apparently that is flaming in Neverfly's mind.

I guess we should just nod and back away slowly without making eye contact.;):m:

Oops! :o

What oops? That has nothing to do with Bells post to me, nor to a flamewar. It's an opinion.
If a thief violently attacks a guard- he's fair game. I stand by that and you're lies aren't going to intimidate me into backing down.

Now, I will refer to the two- now a total of three in the thread - articles above.

It's possible, that Bells, having read an article that implies and hints that the suspect could have been falsely accused, arrived at that conclusion and I, reading an article that covers basic theft, an attempt to stop him and his reaction of violence arrived at a different one. In post number 2, I said, sarcastically, that there's not enough info.

Repeatedly myself and other members have said there's not enough info.
And all this talk of who started it is childish. What really is funny is that talking between myself and others was mostly calm. I stated my impressions and opinions....
Let's see... I've pissed Syne off in another thread. Oh and Lightgigantic. That's a given...:rolleyes:

So where am I starting all these flamewars, exactly?

I know.

It's kind of funny.

And sweet..

What makes this whole thread funny is that he starts it all, usually does, and then complains when he gets the responses he deserves.. Responses that question and query his arguments.. But apparently that is flaming in Neverfly's mind.

I guess we should just nod and back away slowly without making eye contact.;):m:

Such behavior requires either absolutely no self-awareness, or the largest pair of adult male testicles on the planet.

So is there anything that wants to discuss the actual facts of the case, or at this point are we limited to criticizing people's opinions and perceived characters for said opinions?

So is there anything that wants to discuss the actual facts of the case, or at this point are we limited to criticizing people's opinions and perceived characters for said opinions?

Give it a rest, man.

I guess we should just nod and back away slowly without making eye contact.;):m:

That's what I do when I perceive someone to be crazy. I don't know. It usually works. I'm not saying that I think anyone in this discussion is crazy but if that is how you perceive neverfly, then yeah that would be my advice. It has been my reaction with several posters throughout the forum.

Give it a rest, man.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Glad we agree.

BTW, thanks for making me picture "the largest pair of adult male testicles on the planet." I doubt I'll sleep tonight. It really sucks picturing everything you hear or read....

Again, the people complaining the most about thread derailment and insults are the people doing the most derailing and insulting--you and Neverfly.

Again, the people complaining the most about thread derailment and insults are the people doing the most derailing and insulting--you and Neverfly.

Where have I been insulting or derailing? Can you direct me to my exact words.

I've reported posts and since Mod is active in the thread, she can read those reports.

Enough is Enough.
I will refrain from posting in this thread until this issue is resolved.
To other posters- please carry on. This may be an interesting story.

Where have I been insulting or derailing? Can you direct me to my exact words.

Bells already has in her responses to you. Do you need me to link you to those posts, or can you handle that on your own?

Stop complaining about the way people debate. Stop accusing people of being "emotionally charged." Stop defending trolls attempting to start flame wars. Concern yourself with the debate. Right now you're just siding with Neverfly for the sake of it, and Bells has shown you the error of that decision.

What oops? That has nothing to do with Bells post to me, nor to a flamewar. It's an opinion.
If a thief violently attacks a guard- he's fair game. I stand by that and you're lies aren't going to intimidate me into backing down.

Now, I will refer to the two- now a total of three in the thread - articles above.

It's possible, that Bells, having read an article that implies and hints that the suspect could have been falsely accused, arrived at that conclusion and I, reading an article that covers basic theft, an attempt to stop him and his reaction of violence arrived at a different one. In post number 2, I said, sarcastically, that there's not enough info.

Repeatedly myself and other members have said there's not enough info.
And all this talk of who started it is childish. What really is funny is that talking between myself and others was mostly calm. I stated my impressions and opinions....
Let's see... I've pissed Syne off in another thread. Oh and Lightgigantic. That's a given...:rolleyes:

So where am I starting all these flamewars, exactly?

Oh, I thought you meant "controversy" as in when you first said that you think criminals should be put to death. If you mean controversy as in when you started the flamewar, I can show you right now. In response to my comment about guards having a responsibility to make sure they don't kill the person they're detaining, you said:


I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.

Do I need to continue? You also called me a monster, then said:


Or you can sit back and let someone like me come along, whose willing to get dirty and do the dirty work you cannot do. But you don't get to cry from the sidelines.

Shall I go on, or can you for once admit that you were wrong and promise to not get so personal from now on?

Bells already has in her responses to you. Do you need me to link you to those posts, or can you handle that on your own?

Stop complaining about the way people debate. Stop accusing people of being "emotionally charged." Stop defending trolls attempting to start flame wars. Concern yourself with the debate. Right now you're just siding with Neverfly for the sake of it, and Bells has shown you the error of that decision.

I need you to link me to the posts. I can't handle it on my own. I still want to discuss the OP. Not the spat between Bells and Neverfly. I rebutted some of her assertions, asked for clarification of others, and supported some of her other points. I stayed on topic. I did not derail. And I did not take a side. I did not say Neverfly was right. I did say that he is no more wrong than Bells is. I acknowledge that he has an opinion based on assumptions as does she. I did not attack anyone for having an opinion that I considered wrong.

Character attacks are behaviors associated with being emotionally charged by the way. I see Bells attacking a poster's character, so I stated that she seems emotionally charged. If she is not then maybe she should refrain from character attacks. I did not see any character attacks from Neverfly against any posters. He suggested the man in the article that is now dead may have had a questionable character. I said his assessment may be premature. Just as I said Bells assessment of the guards may be premature. How have I derailed? If Bells took offense (which is by the way an emotional response) to my suggesting she is emotionally charged, then I'm sorry she feels (feels is another way of saying experiences an emotion) that way.

I need you to link me to the posts. I can't handle it on my own. I still want to discuss the OP. Not the spat between Bells and Neverfly. I rebutted some of her assertions, asked for clarification of others, and supported some of her other points. I stayed on topic. I did not derail. And I did not take a side. I did not say Neverfly was right. I did say that he is no more wrong than Bells is. I acknowledge that he has an opinion based on assumptions as does she. I did not attack anyone for having an opinion that I considered wrong.

Character attacks are behaviors associated with being emotionally charged by the way. I see Bells attacking a poster's character, so I stated that she seems emotionally charged. If she is not then maybe she should refrain from character attacks. I did not see any character attacks from Neverfly against any posters. He suggested the man in the article that is now dead may have had a questionable character. I said his assessment may be premature. Just as I said Bells assessment of the guards may be premature. How have I derailed? If Bells took offense (which is by the way an emotional response) to my suggesting she is emotionally charged, then I'm sorry she feels (feels is another way of saying experiences an emotion) that way.

That ends the discussion between you and me, because that's obviously BS. You can find the posts yourself. You even responded to them, so I'm sure you remember where they are. I'm not taking the troll bait.

The article is so informative, I don't see how we can draw very clear conclusions.:rolleyes:
informative.
Now, there's an interesting word. in-form. Hmmmm informal means not formal. yet, inquisitiveness, means to be quizzical.

Bells: My opinion on the matter is that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks.
I do not pity them: Sorry.
Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks? Or should she have just accepted the rape so that he could get away and then describe him, what she saw of him, to the cops?

Asguard: You're probably right that more needs to be known about this.
While stealing is wrong, it's a matter of degree. A life is worth more than some Walmart crap. If the person really did get violent, then maybe it was a case of security defending themselves. Or, perhaps it was a precondition, he had a heart attack and died. Or gagged?

BUT, what if the guy was running, got tackled, made a small measly slap at one of the security guards which led to the other guard kicking him repeatedly in the head? Over soap and a slap? What if we found out this man was stealing for his daughter and he was an only parent and had lost his job and was on the edge of loosing his home, the soap and cloths were baby soap and baby cloths? He was desperate and had never done anything like this before in his life. It was a once off, he just lost it out of worry he couldn't provide for his daughter.



I'm not saying this was the case, but, made in China crap is not worth a life.

New information in the case (http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_20793591/suspected-shoplifter-who-died-at-walmart-identified-details)


An Azusa man allegedly shoplifted $56 worth of clothing and toiletries from a Walmart before struggling with and being detained by store employees in the parking lot, screaming "I'm dying!, "I'm dying!" while lying facedown and then becoming unresponsive, according to a witness and investigators.
I wonder if the employees had reasonable opportunity to respond to his screams? Ideally we should always take screams like this seriously, but I can see some people assuming it was just a means to trick them into letting him go. I used to watch cops and I do not know how many times suspects would cry "You're Killing Me!" When in reality they were only sustaining mild injuries because they were struggling with the officers. I am not saying that they should have ignored his cries, I am only saying that I can see why they may not have responded as they should have. Preexisting misconceptions.



"When they got him detained on the ground, that is when Covina officers pulled up," she said. The officers had been called in on the alleged shoplifting.
It would seem, that they did not have time to assess the suspect before cops got there. It is also said earlier in the article that police are not sure if he was tackled or if he fell forward.

I think it was likely a little of both. There was mention of making it to a speed bump and then he went down and it looked as if the two employees tackled him. It seems the police are not totally convinced it was an actual tackle. I think, from a distance a man going down with hands on him can look like a tackle even if it is a failed attempt to keep him from falling. But I guess, unless they release the video we can't really come to any real conclusion here.




Three of the store employees involved are currently suspended with pay pending the outcome of the Sheriff's Department investigation, according to Dianna Gee, Walmart spokeswoman.

She didn't release their names but did clarify that the employees weren't store security.

So these guys were NOT security, which increases the possibility that they did not use Proper security training in taking down a suspect without causing unreasonable injury. And they likely were not made aware of policy procedures specific to security personnel.



She said when Walmart called police for the "shoplifting apprehension," the suspect wasn't in medical distress.


So they didn't call for an ambulance because when the call was made, which was likely from inside the store, there was no apparent medical distress. The apprehension took place outside the store, likely no where near a phone. So the person placing the call was not likely to be aware of what was happening outside. We don't even know if the two employees had phones on them or not.





She said her son wasn't violent or aggressive. He has struggled with alcohol and drugs but was clean and sober and was renting a room in a nearby city.

I know of too many mothers who have perfect angels in jail for far worse than shoplifting. And having a history of drug problems is suggestive that at the very least his health was not likely to have been in the best condition. A mother's perception of her adult child is rarely accurate. Clean and sober is one thing but who were the two people with him and what influence, if any, were they having on his behavior?They were all three suspected, together, of shoplifting and the case against them is still pending. I guess we will have to wait for more info to see where that goes. Since the two employees were NOT security, it IS reasonable to conceive that maybe they simply scared the hell out of the guy and he reacted violently. But if that is the case, that still doesn't necessarily mean they acted inappropriately. I don't know if it is legal in California to try to stop someone from leaving with your property if they are stealing it. It varies state by state.


Under the policy, Gee said associates are trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at risk. The policy does take into account when employees have to take action to protect themselves.

So in this case we have to ask, did they do anything besides get him to the ground? And did they do anything that could be construed as self defense? Are they claiming self defense? If so, how did they feel threatened?

And of course, the actual cause of death is still not determined at this point.

It doesn't appear that the police see any initial evidence of a crime on the employees part since they have not been arrested. I think if they perceived evidence of excessive force they would have arrested someone. But that may just be naive faith in the police.

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

since when have you cared about the facts? you have a nice track record of selectively choosing facts and evidence to mold it to what you want to believe.

Thats what I thought probably happened, not bashing someone up till they die, just a knee in the back of someone face down on the ground, with there chest getting tighter and tighter as the person exhales. It's the same way constricting snakes kill. I would guess this is actually how most nonacidental deaths in custody (that are the fault of the cops and security guards etc) actually happens. Not delibrate murder but manslaughter or negligent homocide.

When ambos restrain patients on the other hand they do it face up with one person on each limb at least and 2 people treating

Character attacks are behaviors associated with being emotionally charged by the way. I see Bells attacking a poster's character, so I stated that she seems emotionally charged. If she is not then maybe she should refrain from character attacks. I did not see any character attacks from Neverfly against any posters. He suggested the man in the article that is now dead may have had a questionable character. I said his assessment may be premature. Just as I said Bells assessment of the guards may be premature. How have I derailed? If Bells took offense (which is by the way an emotional response) to my suggesting she is emotionally charged, then I'm sorry she feels (feels is another way of saying experiences an emotion) that way.
First point where Neverfly attacks my character and makes the emotionally charged argument when he asks me if I would pity a rapist who was injured by the rapist's victim or would I expect the woman to not fight back. Because I apparently pity rapists (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2943978&postcount=20)?


He then goes on to make the bleeding heart liberal (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944008&postcount=23) comment to JDawg when JDawg points out to him that a suspected shoplifter is not a rapist nor is the situation the same. JDawg then advises (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944011&postcount=24) him that he wouldn't pity a rapist, points out the ridiculous nature of Neverfly's argument and also states that he isn't a monster who'd let someone die either. Neverfly then responds (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944017&postcount=25) and makes even more emotionally charged arguments and now brings up cannibals, as though this suspected shop lifter somehow compared to a guy high on drugs eating another man's face, and comments on how he's such a tough guy who'd get his hands dirty to get things done and that JDawg can sit back and let someone like him to come in and do the dirty work and makes snide remarks about JDawg's character.

In the following posts, Neverfly goes on a rant about how he's "a Monster", makes it all nice and bold, gets angry when JDawg correctly queries his armchair hero attitude (refer to the whole 'I'll do the dirty work you won't do'.. in discussing killing someone)..

So before you start to accuse me of being "emotionally charged", I would suggest you look at what was said in this thread and by whom and how before I even wrote my second response to Neverfly.

If you believe disagreeing with Neverfly's assessment is attacking his character, then I would strongly suggest you level that charge at Neverfly first and foremost. Why? Because he has gone out of his way to not only attack people's character in this thread, but also their morals (look at his questions to me about if I'd pity a rapist and trying to insinuate that is what I would do as a prime example, or when he tried to insinuate that JDawg was a coward and how he was the big strong and buff hero "monster" who would go in there and get his hands dirty while discussing killing someone).

I am not offended that you found me emotionally charged. I just think's it's hilarious that someone who does not know me at all could disregard everything that had been said in this thread thus far because she was too busy trying to defend the guy who'd actually started it with the emotional ranting and blatant character assassination and attacks on character and people's morals, and then come out and accuse me of being "emotionally charged". I think you got the wrong person with that accusation.

But your tactic is noted. You seem to follow his quite closely, also noted.

Just don't expect to get any respect when you try to debate like this.

Don't worry though, if I do get "emotionally charged", I'll be sure to let you know so that you can have a good example.


I wonder if the employees had reasonable opportunity to respond to his screams? Ideally we should always take screams like this seriously, but I can see some people assuming it was just a means to trick them into letting him go. I used to watch cops and I do not know how many times suspects would cry "You're Killing Me!" When in reality they were only sustaining mild injuries because they were struggling with the officers. I am not saying that they should have ignored his cries, I am only saying that I can see why they may not have responded as they should have. Preexisting misconceptions.

You left out this important bit:


Picazo went to the side of the store and the two employees tried to tackle him, according to a Walmart employee who witnessed the incident. The witness asked that he not be identified.

The witness said Picazo broke loose, headed up the parking lot almost to where a speed bump was located and got tackled.

"He looked terrible. Not good," the witness said.

According to the witness, Picazo said, "I'm dying! I'm dying!" while lying facedown in the parking lot then finally didn't say anything.

I'm dying!" while lying facedown in the parking lot then finally didn't say anything.

Lt. Francisco said investigators aren't sure if Picazo was tackled or if he fell forward. She said two store employees collecting shopping carts went to assist the loss prevention officers.

"When they got him detained on the ground, that is when Covina officers pulled up," she said. The officers had been called in on the alleged shoplifting.

Police noticed Picazo was in medical distress. His breathing was shallow. She said Picazo wasn't responding to verbal commands from police. An officer felt for a pulse, which was faint.

"(Police) moved him to a grassy area. They realized he wasn't breathing. Two officers did CPR," Francisco said.

Paramedics arrived and took Picazo to the hospital, where he died.



[Source (http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_20793591/suspected-shoplifter-who-died-at-walmart-identified-details)]




Why did you leave that part out?


It would seem, that they did not have time to assess the suspect before cops got there. It is also said earlier in the article that police are not sure if he was tackled or if he fell forward.

I think it was likely a little of both. There was mention of making it to a speed bump and then he went down and it looked as if the two employees tackled him. It seems the police are not totally convinced it was an actual tackle. I think, from a distance a man going down with hands on him can look like a tackle even if it is a failed attempt to keep him from falling. But I guess, unless they release the video we can't really come to any real conclusion here.
From your own links, witnesses said that he looked terrible, "not good" when he was chased and then possibly tackled again, where he then yelled "I'm dying", and die he did a short while later.

Considering the police had to start CPR on him at the scene, he actually did die at the scene and was pronounced at the hospital.


So these guys were NOT security, which increases the possibility that they did not use Proper security training in taking down a suspect without causing unreasonable injury. And they likely were not made aware of policy procedures specific to security personnel.

Nope. In a link I provided earlier, she stated that they sometimes contract out security work to other firms.

From your link:


Under the policy, Gee said associates are trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at risk.


So they didn't call for an ambulance because when the call was made, which was likely from inside the store, there was no apparent medical distress. The apprehension took place outside the store, likely no where near a phone. So the person placing the call was not likely to be aware of what was happening outside. We don't even know if the two employees had phones on them or not.

Nope, they detained him face down, on the ground as his heart and breathing stopped.


I know of too many mothers who have perfect angels in jail for far worse than shoplifting. And having a history of drug problems is suggestive that at the very least his health was not likely to have been in the best condition. A mother's perception of her adult child is rarely accurate. Clean and sober is one thing but who were the two people with him and what influence, if any, were they having on his behavior?They were all three suspected, together, of shoplifting and the case against them is still pending. I guess we will have to wait for more info to see where that goes. Since the two employees were NOT security, it IS reasonable to conceive that maybe they simply scared the hell out of the guy and he reacted violently. But if that is the case, that still doesn't necessarily mean they acted inappropriately. I don't know if it is legal in California to try to stop someone from leaving with your property if they are stealing it. It varies state by state.
They were security. I linked articles earlier which stated that Walmart contract out security to security companies and they also advised that such associates are trained to disengage when people's lives are in danger.

Are you saying the mother did not know her child?


So in this case we have to ask, did they do anything besides get him to the ground? And did they do anything that could be construed as self defense? Are they claiming self defense? If so, how did they feel threatened?

And of course, the actual cause of death is still not determined at this point.

You tell us.


Picazo went to the side of the store and the two employees tried to tackle him, according to a Walmart employee who witnessed the incident. The witness asked that he not be identified.

The witness said Picazo broke loose, headed up the parking lot almost to where a speed bump was located and got tackled.

"He looked terrible. Not good," the witness said.

I said I reported posts. I said I would refrain.
But you know what I think?

I think reporting her posts does no good.
Fine- I'll point out a few things. I'll defend myself.


Nope. In a link I provided earlier, she stated that they sometimes contract out security work to other firms.


She didn't release their names but did clarify that the employees weren't store security.
Bells, this demonstrates that you are not reading the articles or following what is said.

Bells; Saying they "Inflicted the Death Penalty" is an emotionally charged Rant. It is inaccurate and out of line.

Comparing criminals is not. Comparing officer action is legitimate. Comparing officer response and action is legitimate. The cannibal was unarmed too- But being threatening. He got shot. I pointed out he was hooped up on drugs.

Saying I'm not a bleeding heart liberal is a statement of fact. Not a character attack on anyone. It is directed at myself.

Saying I'm a Monster is a statement of myself- Not a character attack on anyone. It is directed at myself. The time JDawg claimed I called him a Monster- I had only said he would be IF He believed people could not defend themselves from attack.

Responding to JDawgs "Armchair Hero" comment as I had was probably poor judgment. If I must apologize for that, I will.
Not that it matters that JDawg said that, right?
That's about the ONLY thing you could have said I did wrong.

However, you aggressively claiming that I support killing petty crooks is NOT a statement of fact and IS a character attack. I did not say that, I said I don't pity a man that attacks those that stop him from a crime.

You saying that I Have no respect of the law- IS a character attack.

You are intellectually Dishonest, Bells.
Your charges are dishonest. Your description of events is dishonest.
You turn discussions into nightmares like THIS.
How many other members- CHECK- HOW MANY have these kinds of arguments with me? You are the Only One, BELLS. I'm Fed up with your appalling behavior.
Syne was pissed off, but it's not THIS caliber. It wasn't nightmarish. I was able to ignore a lot of his charges of being Mentally Deficient, etc.
But with you-it's EVERY THREAD we both participate on. Every Time. Is it that you want to push me over the edge so I get myself banned, Bells? Is that it? Is that what you want? If you want me off the forum, just SAY so. Say, "I don't want you here, Neverfly." There's no need for this dramatic CRAP. Just SAY it. I'll be happy to leave this forum all on my own- and not have to deal with HUGE FIGHTS in EVERY THREAD we both discuss in! I did it for two years before after your First encounter with me when you drove me from the site.

I don't know what your obsession is with ensuring every time we discuss something in a thread it turns into this but you need to BACK OFF.

Bells, I am simply not going to discuss this thread with you anymore so you can blaze away at me. This is the last remark you will get from me to you in this thread or any other. I don't feel you are capable of a civilized discussion. Take that anyway you want, I simply do not care at this point. If you feel that Neverfly and I have similar "tactics" I really do not care. I don't see us posting the same at all. If we have similar views oh well. What are the odds of two human beings having similar views? It does happen Bells. And from what I have seen people other than Neverfly have had similar complaints about how you debate.

I said I reported posts. I said I would refrain.
But you know what I think?

I think reporting her posts does no good.
Fine- I'll point out a few things. I'll defend myself.


Report me for what?

Disagreeing with you? Have I missed a memo?


Bells, this demonstrates that you are not reading the articles or following what is said.

From an article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/man-dies-after-fight-with_n_1570121.html) I linked earlier and have referred to a few times in this thread:


Members of the store's loss prevention team are unarmed, and the company has an outside security company to provide assistance at some stores, including Covina, Gee said.

Gee said Walmart will make sure its policies and procedures were followed, she said.

"Associates are trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at risk," Gee said.

I would strongly suggest you go back and read what has been said and linked in this thread Neverfly.


Bells; Saying they "Inflicted the Death Penalty" is an emotionally charged Rant. It is inaccurate and out of line.
They restrained him until his heart stopped and he stopped breathing.

You also took my comment completely out of context.

But this is usual for you, isn't it? You take something and run with it without checking to see if you are right first.


Comparing criminals is not. Comparing officer action is legitimate. Comparing officer response and action is legitimate. The cannibal was unarmed too- But being threatening. He got shot. I pointed out he was hooped up on drugs.

Firstly, your constant bolding of words when you get angry gets old fast. It is tantamount to shouting when posting on forums. Please stop it.

Secondly, you were comparing crimes that were so far apart on the scales, it wasn't even funny. You attempted to compare a suspected shoplifting with the rape of a woman and the cannibalism and attempted murder of another person. Not only is it not a legitimate argument, but it is one that is so far out of left field that you automatically lose any credibility you think you may have had in this discussion. It was almost embarrassing watching you make such arguments.

I actually rolled my eyes. It was a clear and blatant attempt by you to appeal to people's emotions.. You also clearly and succinctly stated that "this is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks" when I dared to suggest, in my first post in this thread, that the security personnel employed by Walmart should have followed Walmart's policy and back off when it was clear the man was in medical distress.


Saying I'm not a bleeding heart liberal is a statement of fact. Not a character attack on anyone. It is directed at myself.

Neverfly, the manner in which you posted, made out that you thought JDawg was a "bleeding heart liberal" without any proof and then insinuated that he was some kind of coward who would sit on the sidelines while someone like you would come along and do the dirty work. You were dismissive, rude, presumptuous, amongst other things. You also did this without any proof whatsoever of JDawg's character or what he would or would not do.


Saying I'm a Monster is a statement of myself- Not a character attack on anyone. It is directed at myself. The time JDawg claimed I called him a Monster- I had only said he would be IF He believed people could not defend themselves from attack.

No. You said (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944017&postcount=25), and I quote:


Or you can sit back and let someone like me come along, whose willing to get dirty and do the dirty work you cannot do. But you don't get to cry from the sidelines.

After saying he could take "good sweet care" of the person beating him.

You insinuated he was some kind of coward and weak in strength and character.


Responding to JDawgs "Armchair Hero" comment as I had was probably poor judgment. If I must apologize for that, I will.
Not that it matters that JDawg said that, right?
That's about the ONLY thing you could have said I did wrong.
Neverfly, the violence displayed by you in this thread has been appalling.

Let us have a look at the manner in which you attempted to then compare this to a hypothetical situation of if someone was mugged while discussing 'self defense' with JDawg.. This is how you compared the situation (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944054&postcount=33):


So, they did not off and kill someone. Although he did die.
What happens if you defend yourself from a mugger whose, beating on your face, wanting your wallet- You slug him and his fragile little neck breaks or you hit his nose in the right spot and jam bone fragments into his brain?
He had it comin.'

This is appalling.

You may think this is acceptable, but it is not. You are almost gleefully thinking up these scenarios.

Now here is where your accusation against me gets interesting. When you, after posting the violent messages you have been posting in this thread and have been overly aggressive, confrontational and one could even say threatening, you accuse me of this:


However, you aggressively claiming that I support killing petty crooks is NOT a statement of fact and IS a character attack. I did not say that, I said I don't pity a man that attacks those that stop him from a crime.

It is laughable.

This is after you describe how one could kill a 'petty crook'.


You saying that I Have no respect of the law- IS a character attack.
Neverfly, I would strongly suggest you go back and look at you.. performance.. in this thread and then get back to me about how and why I may think you have little to no respect for the law.

And you don't think you asking me this:


Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks? Or should she have just accepted the rape so that he could get away and then describe him, what she saw of him, to the cops?

Could be construed as a character attack?

Knowing my opinion on rape, do you really think that question was appropriate?

Edited to address your edit:


You are intellectually Dishonest, Bells.
Your charges are dishonest. Your description of events is dishonest.
You turn discussions into nightmares like THIS.
How many other members- CHECK- HOW MANY have these kinds of arguments with me? You are the Only One, BELLS. I'm Fed up with your appalling behavior.
Syne was pissed off, but it's not THIS caliber. It wasn't nightmarish. I was able to ignore a lot of his charges of being Mentally Deficient, etc.
But with you-it's EVERY THREAD we both participate on. Every Time. Is it that you want to push me over the edge so I get myself banned, Bells? Is that it? Is that what you want? If you want me off the forum, just SAY so. Say, "I don't want you here, Neverfly." There's no need for this dramatic CRAP. Just SAY it. I'll be happy to leave this forum all on my own- and not have to deal with HUGE FIGHTS in EVERY THREAD we both discuss in! I did it for two years before after your First encounter with me when you drove me from the site.

I don't know what your obsession is with ensuring every time we discuss something in a thread it turns into this but you need to BACK OFF.
My first post in this thread was to suggest that the security guards should have 'disengaged' as per Walmart's policy and you responded by asking me if I'd pity a rapist and if I would expect a woman to not fight back when she is being raped. If anyone can be accused of blatant intellectual dishonesty Neverfly, it is you.

You have gleefully been posting blood thirsty posts in this thread, almost joyful at the thought of the violence you seem to think is acceptable (refer to the whole punching someone's nose into the brain as a prime example). Apparently, this is not appalling behaviour to you.

And drive you from this site? You are still going on about a thread on rape 2 years ago when I disagreed with your views on rape victims? Really? You know, I would laugh at you, but I think at this point you kind of deserve my pity. Get a grip on yourself man. If you expect to be taken seriously, don't act so hysterically.

And I am going to give you some advice, as a moderator and as someone who has been unfortunate enough to witness your embarrassing and violent display in this thread. You back off and you go and cool off. Failure to do so can and will result in you being moderated.

You're still distorting, Bells. Your tactics are dishonest. Your character attacks are grossly out of line. Your Ad Hom tactics are Conduct unbecoming of a Mod. You're a loose cannon that allows your personal feelings to alter posts. For you to behave in such an uncontrolled manner to drive posters from this forum and to drive posters to this state of absolute frustration over your dishonesty and character attacks questions your judgment and actions.

I think there should be a Vote of No Confidence In You to Moderate.

The follow video shows a little old lady being taken down by the cops. It looks bad but she was holding a knife.

Elderly woman slammed hard by police at Walmart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xW_-bSxTyI)

Bells, I am simply not going to discuss this thread with you anymore so you can blaze away at me. This is the last remark you will get from me to you in this thread or any other. I don't feel you are capable of a civilized discussion. Take that anyway you want, I simply do not care at this point. If you feel that Neverfly and I have similar "tactics" I really do not care. I don't see us posting the same at all. If we have similar views oh well. What are the odds of two human beings having similar views? It does happen Bells. And from what I have seen people other than Neverfly have had similar complaints about how you debate.
I don't even know what you are on about.

I responded to you politely and questioned some of what you said.

Maybe you are from somewhere where asking questions politely and discussing things is not what you consider to be civilised? I don't know. But at no time did I "blaze away" at you.

If you want to see an example of blazing away, I'd suggest you check out your friend's epic rant in the previous post.

I responded to you politely and questioned some of what you said.
You call THAT polite? Dishonesty. You accused her of deliberately withholding part of the article.

You still have not accepted that Gee, Clarifying - her words- that they were not security- her words- shows that you are refusing to accept the facts.

JDawg called ME a Monster first, I just accepted it. Your Dishonesty.


Maybe you are from somewhere where asking questions politely and discussing things is not what you consider to be civilised? I don't know. But at no time did I "blaze away" at you.
Your posts stand Clear: Uncivilized and Impolite.


If you want to see an example of blazing away, I'd suggest you check out your friend's epic rant in the previous post.
I'm tired of your lies and I'd like to know why no one will stand up to you.

Last bit of intellectual Dishonesty: Two years ago was a thread on ABORTION Bells. Not Rape. I had argued that the Father has some say in whether or not a fetus is aborted. I reminded you of this days ago in a PM. You cannot keep your facts straight.
You misrepresent others posts. You create character assassinations to paint a false image of Negative Character traits - You put words in posters mouths they never said.
You rely on the bet that someone coming along won't take the time to review all the lengthy posts to see what was actually said and will take your posts- supposedly spelling it all out with dishonest distortions at face value. You try to lie your way out of it.

No Confidence In Your Ability To Moderate.

The follow video shows a little old lady being taken down by the cops. It looks bad but she was holding a knife.

Elderly woman slammed hard by police at Walmart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xW_-bSxTyI)

It does look bad but they did instruct her several times to put the knife down. At the same time that she was refusing to put down the knife she was approaching a police officer. You simply cannot approach a police officer with a knife in your hand and not expect them to treat you as a threat. The by standers are blinding themselves to the errors the old lady made. If any of them had cared about her they should have convinced her to put down the knife.

Bystanders can be heard saying "she did have a knife but they didn't have to slam her like that." The thing is, an old person can stab you just like anyone else can. If you do not comply with police demands they will take the action they are trained to take. They will treat you as armed and dangerous. That's just the way it is, and at her age she should have known better than to approach the police with a knife.

They did not beat up the old lady up like the bystander keeps shouting. Its interesting how he starts laughing at the end. Seems he was enjoying the sensationalizing of the events he was creating.

The follow video shows a little old lady being taken down by the cops. It looks bad but she was holding a knife.

Elderly woman slammed hard by police at Walmart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xW_-bSxTyI)

Nice. Classic ju-jitsu move. And they didn't shoot her, which is a plus. A professional job on the part of the police. However, a Hapkido wrist lock would have caused her to drop the knife without flipping her on the ground.

You call THAT polite? Dishonesty. You accused her of deliberately withholding part of the article.

You still have not accepted that Gee, Clarifying - her words- that they were not security- her words- shows that you are refusing to accept the facts.

JDawg called ME a Monster first, I just accepted it. Your Dishonesty.


Your posts stand Clear: Uncivilized and Impolite.


I'm tired of your lies and I'd like to know why no one will stand up to you.

Last bit of intellectual Dishonesty: Two years ago was a thread on ABORTION Bells. Not Rape. I had argued that the Father has some say in whether or not a fetus is aborted. I reminded you of this days ago in a PM. You cannot keep your facts straight.
You misrepresent others posts. You create character assassinations to paint a false image of Negative Character traits - You put words in posters mouths they never said.
You rely on the bet that someone coming along won't take the time to review all the lengthy posts to see what was actually said and will take your posts- supposedly spelling it all out with dishonest distortions at face value. You try to lie your way out of it.

No Confidence In Your Ability To Moderate.

Okay, Neverfly, since you are so... angry.. about this, I am not going to discuss anything further with you.

Suffice to say that after that little meltdown of yours, I don't think it is prudent for me to try to actually discuss anything with you.

So here is what I have done. I have requested a review of this thread.

I will be honest, I have expressed concern as to your mental state at this point (hence why I am not going to discuss this subject with you any further). I mention this because of the violent nature of the posts you have made in this thread. Considering you are again bringing up something from over 2 years ago, which I can't even remember, tells me that there is something more to this and your apparent issue with me than I actually know of or underestand. Nor do I really want to understand it because if you are still this angry about an apparent disagreement we had on this site from 2 years ago, then yeah.. sorry.. There's a limit.

And frankly, I really do not think it is safe to feed your hysteria and anger any further. I am not trying to insult you here Neverfly, so please, for the love of all that is holy, do not take it that way. But I think our discussion ends here because I am actually concerned about you at this point in time. You seem.. unstable and slightly unhinged. And I do think you need to back off a bit and calm down. Okay?

______________________________________________

Seagypsy

I asked you why you did not post that bit. I think if you are taking offense to something like that, then maybe you need to grow some thicker skin.

I will be honest, I have expressed concern as to your mental state at this point (hence why I am not going to discuss this subject with you any further).
Yes, I'm obviously a lunatic for being angry at your constant deceptions.:rolleyes: Your only claim to show concern over my mental state is to justify me as warped. No. You have attacked, attacked and attacked until I got pissed off. That's Normal and Human. It's infuriating that Mods get away with lying about members. You're not fooling anyone.


I mention this because of the violent nature of the posts you have made in this thread.
Oh, whatever. Worst I said was I was a Soldier- U.S. Army and was willing to be dirty- That is FIGHT BACK. The premise was one of DEFENSE- On Topic. It means that I believe that a person getting physically assaulted has the right to defend themselves, and if the other person believed that a person should take the attack and not defend themselves, I would still be a defender. Response to his "Armchair hero comment" (Which you ignore) and him calling me a Monster first (which you also ignore.)


Considering you are again bringing up something from over 2 years ago, which I can't even remember, tells me that there is something more to this and your apparent issue with me than I actually know of or underestand. Nor do I really want to understand it because if you are still this angry about an apparent disagreement we had on this site from 2 years ago, then yeah.. sorry.. There's a limit.
You brought it up - Post 82 At the bottom. I responded to it. YOU brought that up- NOT ME. It was not mentioned in any post previous to yours.
More intellectual dishonesty from you. Find where I brought that up- You still cannot keep your facts straight. You brought that up- out of the blue. I addressed what you brought up. And that thread and our huge fight back then was on the topic of ABORTION. Not rape. Comparing criminals being aggressively detained is Legitimate. You are the one who is mistaken. And it's been addressed- several times. Still not keeping your facts straight.


And I do think you need to back off a bit and calm down. Okay?
No, you need to stop resorting to deception to debate. Don't try playing it off all sweet now- You flamed in the thread. Made dishonest accusations, insinuations and flat out lied, repeatedly.
You pushed- hoping I'd finally stop posting calmly and politely. It worked.

I was Polite and I tried going through the Proper Channels. I PM'ed Mods, I reported posts for a change, I've tried ignoring you and I've tried discussing the matter. What I Observe going on is Mods can flame and insult members with impunity- and turn around and ban members for fighting back, saying they insulted and flamed when they defended themselves from mod attacks.

Seagypsy

I asked you why you did not post that bit. I think if you are taking offense to something like that, then maybe you need to grow some thicker skin.

I actually posted a previous part of the article where it is mentioned that he was screaming "I'm dying!" Since I already addressed it I felt it would be redundant to address it again. You also did not post the entire article. Why did you leave parts out? Or is it ok for you to post the parts you are addressing and not the rest, but not ok for other participants to post only the parts they are addressing. Accusing me of intentionally hiding parts of the article is a cheap shot at best and terribly inaccurate. If this is the way you approach a debate I do not feel it is necessary to debate any further, since it seems there is one set of rules for you and another for the other participants. I will not debate on unfair terms. I did not take offense to you, I just came to the conclusion you do not follow the same rules the rest of us are expected to, hence my conclusion that you are not worth my time, and THAT is my final word.

I actually posted a previous part of the article where it is mentioned that he was screaming "I'm dying!" Since I already addressed it I felt it would be redundant to address it again. You also did not post the entire article. Why did you leave parts out? Or is it ok for you to post the parts you are addressing and not the rest, but not ok for other participants to post only the parts they are addressing. Accusing me of intentionally hiding parts of the article is a cheap shot at best and terribly inaccurate. If this is the way you approach a debate I do not feel it is necessary to debate any further, since it seems there is one set of rules for you and another for the other participants. I will not debate on unfair terms. I did not take offense to you, I just came to the conclusion you do not follow the same rules the rest of us are expected to, hence my conclusion that you are not worth my time, and THAT is my final word.

Well, I am offended. By her mis-characterizations, Lies and the fact that I have to actually defend myself this hard from someone that's supposed to be entrusted as a Moderator to view topics fairly and objectively.

You brought it up - Post 82 At the bottom. I responded to it. YOU brought that up- NOT ME. It was not mentioned in any post previous to yours.
More intellectual dishonesty from you. Find where I brought that up- You still cannot keep your facts straight. You brought that up- out of the blue. I addressed what you brought up. And that thread and our huge fight back then was on the topic of ABORTION. Not rape. Comparing criminals being aggressively detained is Legitimate. You are the one who is mistaken. And it's been addressed- several times. Still not keeping your facts straight.



Neverfly, I didn't bring it up first, you did.


I did it for two years before after your First encounter with me when you drove me from the site.

Post 82 is when I was responding to this statement from you.

So please, calm down, back off and go and cool off and then return to this thread.


I actually posted a previous part of the article where it is mentioned that he was screaming "I'm dying!" Since I already addressed it I felt it would be redundant to address it again. You also did not post the entire article. Why did you leave parts out? Or is it ok for you to post the parts you are addressing and not the rest, but not ok for other participants to post only the parts they are addressing. Accusing me of intentionally hiding parts of the article is a cheap shot at best and terribly inaccurate. If this is the way you approach a debate I do not feel it is necessary to debate any further, since it seems there is one set of rules for you and another for the other participants. I will not debate on unfair terms. I did not take offense to you, I just came to the conclusion you do not follow the same rules the rest of us are expected to, hence my conclusion that you are not worth my time, and THAT is my final word.
I don't know you.

But I am curious as to why you are trying so desperately hard to make yourself a victim here when you have gone out of your way to be insulting and rude from the get go (refer to your repeated accusations of my apparently being emotionally charged and then falsely accusing me of almost attacking you in this thread)? I queried why you left out the part where witnesses stated he had been tackled to the ground by security guards, where he then fought them off and ran through the carpark and they apparently chased and possibly tackled him down a second time, when he then said "I'm dying".

The reason I asked you that question, Seagypsy, is because it seems to go directly against the news in the OP which states he started the fight with the security guard when they then tackled him. In other words, from that witness statement, they may have thrown the first punch, as a manner of speaking.

If you view questioning you on what you post as "blazing away" at you or somehow attacking you, then to be honest with you, I don't quite know what to say or how to say it that would not be deemed an insult at this point in time. Because it is strange that querying one's posts now amounts to "blazing away"..

Neverfly, I didn't bring it up first, you did.

Post 82 is when I was responding to this statement from you.

So please, calm down, back off and go and cool off and then return to this thread.

Granted: I did say that- I did not equate it for a moment because that thread was on Abortion, not rape. You claimed a rape thread and a disagreement on victims, which never happened. It was abortion and I was defending a fathers right to have some say in it. The audacity- for which I got heavily flamed. My mistake for confusing that.
Which I pointed out to you anyway... But since you mention it- I brought that up not because of a grudge- but to point out that you Drive People Off the Forums with your unchecked behavior. A legitimate reason.

Request to go calm down: Granted.
Return to the thread? I think not. I've taken more than enough of your attacks on my character.

The reason I asked you that question, Seagypsy, is because it seems to go directly against the news in the OP which states he started the fight with the security guard when they then tackled him. In other words, from that witness statement, they may have thrown the first punch, as a manner of speaking.



In threads of this nature, are we not allowed to post follow up articles that provide more information as the story develops? I was addressing the new information in the article I linked to. I did not re post the entire article because I made the link available. I was advised by another member in an unrelated thread not to ever post an entire article or we can be accused of plagiarism. So I quoted the parts I was addressing. My interpretation of the article is my own interpretation and you are free and welcome to disagree with it, but to accuse me of intentionally hiding things is a false attack against me and my integrity. And considering I am still weighing the "evidence" in the case and considering all possibilities without jumping to any conclusion yet, I really don't understand why you are so adamantly trying to discredit me. Especially considering, much of what I have posted actually supports some of your earlier assertions.

It is possible to support one persons conclusion while allowing someone with a different conclusion to disagree. That is all I have done, while not coming yet to a conclusion on the situation described in the OP and elaborated on by the links you have posted as well as the links I have posted.

It is very clear at this point that you and Neverfly are both very emotionally charged at this point. As a mod, you should have defused this long ago, and you could have but chose not to. You have interacted with Neverfly on this forum long enough to know what his buttons are and you pushed them. He may very well have done the same to you. Whether either of you did it intentionally is unknown but you could have diffused and you did not. You were too involved to see things objectively.

If you feel I have been rude in anyway besides suggesting you are emotionally charged, something you have done nothing to suggest otherwise, then I would like to have you point my rude remarks so that I can reevaluate my own words and reconsider if I could have presented them in a way that would have been less offensive to you.

ETA: Can we please drop the debate of who said what and he started it no she started it. It is up for review according to you, and I am confident it is because I have reported your behavior and Neverfly says he has as well. Way before you decided that moderation was needed I may add.

ENOUGH for the love of whatever deity you may or may not worship or ignore... this is getting out of hand. Everybody on this "he said she said" train, grow some thicker skin okay? Not every single post is going to be all gingerbread and butterscotch - sometimes people will get emotional and sometimes people will get confrontational - as far as I can tell, Bell's questions, while not the most tactful, were legitimate and directed at what was/is visible (concrete), and thus asked for clarification on the REASON behind said posts.

Now, seriously, keep it civil, get back on track, drop it, or what have you... but stop derailing threads with "he said / she said" tomfoolery.

ENOUGH for the love of whatever deity you may or may not worship or ignore... this is getting out of hand. Everybody on this "he said she said" train, grow some thicker skin okay? Not every single post is going to be all gingerbread and butterscotch - sometimes people will get emotional and sometimes people will get confrontational - as far as I can tell, Bell's questions, while not the most tactful, were legitimate and directed at what was/is visible (concrete), and thus asked for clarification on the REASON behind said posts.

Now, seriously, keep it civil, get back on track, drop it, or what have you... but stop derailing threads with "he said / she said" tomfoolery.

It's somewhat hard to read that shade of blue, but I'll second your request.

@ KilljoyKlown - I revised it with a darker color :)

@ KilljoyKlown - I revised it with a darker color :)

Much better

Bells: My opinion on the matter is that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks.
I do not pity them: Sorry.
Would you pity a rapist who was in medical distress after a woman defended herself from his attacks?

While we are on reductio ad absurdum:

8 year old steals a candy bar. Guard takes him out back and beats him to death. OK in your book?

billvon, heh... pretty much all I can say is thank you for showing how absurd trying to "rule by the letter" can be :)

In threads of this nature, are we not allowed to post follow up articles that provide more information as the story develops? I was addressing the new information in the article I linked to. I did not re post the entire article because I made the link available. I was advised by another member in an unrelated thread not to ever post an entire article or we can be accused of plagiarism. So I quoted the parts I was addressing. My interpretation of the article is my own interpretation and you are free and welcome to disagree with it, but to accuse me of intentionally hiding things is a false attack against me and my integrity. And considering I am still weighing the "evidence" in the case and considering all possibilities without jumping to any conclusion yet, I really don't understand why you are so adamantly trying to discredit me. Especially considering, much of what I have posted actually supports some of your earlier assertions.

It is possible to support one persons conclusion while allowing someone with a different conclusion to disagree. That is all I have done, while not coming yet to a conclusion on the situation described in the OP and elaborated on by the links you have posted as well as the links I have posted.

It is very clear at this point that you and Neverfly are both very emotionally charged at this point. As a mod, you should have defused this long ago, and you could have but chose not to. You have interacted with Neverfly on this forum long enough to know what his buttons are and you pushed them. He may very well have done the same to you. Whether either of you did it intentionally is unknown but you could have diffused and you did not. You were too involved to see things objectively.

If you feel I have been rude in anyway besides suggesting you are emotionally charged, something you have done nothing to suggest otherwise, then I would like to have you point my rude remarks so that I can reevaluate my own words and reconsider if I could have presented them in a way that would have been less offensive to you.

ETA: Can we please drop the debate of who said what and he started it no she started it. It is up for review according to you, and I am confident it is because I have reported your behavior and Neverfly says he has as well. Way before you decided that moderation was needed I may add.

Seagypsy, when you post on forums, people will sometimes disagree with your assessment. They will often quote you and ask you questions about what you have posted. That is the nature of forums.

It is not a personal attack or an attack on your character if someone asks you why you left out something from an article, especially when it seems to directly go against what was said in the OP (ie, gives the indication that the guards tackled him down first and that was when he resisted). This is not an attack against you or your integrity.

At first in this thread, I pretty much ignored you, because it was clear you were intent on starting an argument with me by deliberately twisting what I had said. You then changed tact and started to accuse me of being emotionally charged. I responded to you politely and I even asked you politely to cease and desist with that line of argument. And you kept at me and kept on going. I continued to respond to you about this thread topic politely.

I will ask you again. Please stop accusing me of being emotionally charged. Contrary to what you may believe, I am not some weak woman who suffers from vapors at the mere sign of confrontation and false accusations. I am not emotionally charged. I have explained to you that you have not offended me. I don't quite know how many times I need to keep saying it. But you don't actually matter enough to me to get that kind of response out of me. Neither does Neverfly. Is that clear enough for you now?

What I would like you to show me, however, is where I have apparently "hinted (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113991)" at moderating you for apparently not agreeing with me. That is a very grievious accusation and one that I would like you to please explain.

That aside, accusing me of being too involved in what? This discussion?

I beg to differ. If your accusation is to be taken seriously, it would apply to you just as much, if not more so. People often disagree, seagypsy. It does not mean that when there is a disagreement that one becomes emotional and one cannot remain objective. Nor does it mean that just because someone does not disagree with your assessment that they are flaming you or insulting you.

Seagypsy, when you post on forums, people will sometimes disagree with your assessment. They will often quote you and ask you questions about what you have posted. That is the nature of forums.

It is not a personal attack or an attack on your character if someone asks you why you left out something from an article, especially when it seems to directly go against what was said in the OP (ie, gives the indication that the guards tackled him down first and that was when he resisted). This is not an attack against you or your integrity.

At first in this thread, I pretty much ignored you, because it was clear you were intent on starting an argument with me by deliberately twisting what I had said. You then changed tact and started to accuse me of being emotionally charged. I responded to you politely and I even asked you politely to cease and desist with that line of argument. And you kept at me and kept on going. I continued to respond to you about this thread topic politely.

I will ask you again. Please stop accusing me of being emotionally charged. Contrary to what you may believe, I am not some weak woman who suffers from vapors at the mere sign of confrontation and false accusations. I am not emotionally charged. I have explained to you that you have not offended me. I don't quite know how many times I need to keep saying it. But you don't actually matter enough to me to get that kind of response out of me. Neither does Neverfly. Is that clear enough for you now?

What I would like you to show me, however, is where I have apparently "hinted (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113991)" at moderating you for apparently not agreeing with me. That is a very grievious accusation and one that I would like you to please explain.

That aside, accusing me of being too involved in what? This discussion?

I beg to differ. If your accusation is to be taken seriously, it would apply to you just as much, if not more so. People often disagree, seagypsy. It does not mean that when there is a disagreement that one becomes emotional and one cannot remain objective. Nor does it mean that just because someone does not disagree with your assessment that they are flaming you or insulting you.
So apparently the official mod note in this thread requesting us to drop it is being ignored by one participant. Interesting.

So apparently the official mod note in this thread requesting us to drop it is being ignored by one participant. Interesting.


that just sop around these parts
the only way one can get a sciforumer to shut up is to either lock or ban

all hail us


This is the last remark you will get from me to you in this thread or any other.


whats up, sciforumer? :p

that just sop around these parts
the only way one can get a sciforumer to shut up is to either lock or ban

all hail us




whats up, sciforumer? :p

You gotme on that one, but I was more making a comment to all readers pointing out an observation. The. Quote was just evidence to support my conclusion.

He got caught. I mean, what do you want? A notarized confession?
Where I live, until he is tried and convicted in a court of law, demonstrating that the charges have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the crime remains an allegation, and he is the alleged offender.

Regardless of the crime.

You could stab someone in front of thirty witnesses in broad daylight, killing them, but until you are tried and convicted in a court of law, and had the opportunity to defend yourself, you are the accused, and the crime is an allegation.

Perhaps the alleged shoplifter had a lapse in a moment of panic. Perhaps the alleged shoplifter panicked because they had a pre-existing medical condition (Angina, for example) that became their overwhelming imperative. Perhaps it became their overwhelming imperative because they had their angina medication in their car, rather than their pocket.

Perhaps they ran and fought the guards off simply because they knew they had a pre-existing medical condition, and that they needed to get to their vehicle to retrieve their medication because they could feel the precursor symptoms of an impending attack. Perhaps the guards in their fervor to 'catch a crook' misinterpreted the alleged shoplifters actions.

since when have you cared about the facts? you have a nice track record of selectively choosing facts and evidence to mold it to what you want to believe.

You're one to talk pjdude, you love saying untrue things.

You're one to talk pjdude, you love saying untrue things.
Right I don't what I did that you took as me crapping in your wheaties but I have never said anything that was demonstrated to me in a logical manner to be false and would like you to elaborate. Or are u a sock or a friend of some of less reputable members? Because if your like most people here you confuse untrue with I don't believe

Perhaps they ran and fought the guards off simply because they knew they had a pre-existing medical condition, and that they needed to get to their vehicle to retrieve their medication because they could feel the precursor symptoms of an impending attack. Perhaps the guards in their fervor to 'catch a crook' misinterpreted the alleged shoplifters actions.

I said that if more facts came to light, I'd probably view this case a little differently. This Case.
I still don't pity a crook. I really don't give a damn what others think about that.

In this case, the news said he attacked Security.

Later, the news said that it wasn't security.

So F.I.A- it isn't my fault if the news is faulty.

I also considered that the guy intended to pay, had a medical emergency and rushed to his car. I thought of it today after reading some news. He forgot about the cart.
It's possible that was the case. Irrelevant to what I said earlier.
Because what I said earlier was clear and established.

It's not unusual for more facts to come to light and a person will reevaulate a position- but I didn't make a real position. I stated I don't pity crooks. I bastard.
If this guy turns out to not be a crook- I'll have more pity for him. But I had stated a General Opinion. I stand by that and I won't tolerate to the words being twisted and changed for someone else to enjoy flaming another member that they dislike.

Not hard, is it?

Bells flaming and character attacks were still B.S. and it's DISGUSTING you guys allow that hypocritical and unchecked behavior.

Bell's questions, while not the most tactful, were legitimate and directed at what was/is visible (concrete), and thus asked for clarification on the REASON behind said posts.


Bells questions about "inflicting the Death Penalty" and "judge jury and executioner are Legitimate,":rolleyes: Riiiiiiight...

What you have is a Moderator instigating fights deliberately because she gets off on it, then she tricks others into thinking she hates fighting and it was all a misunderstanding. I don't fight with anyone else the way I do Bells. It's only Bells. Now that hell's been raised, she's turned on the sweet factory.

This demonstrates something. It's not everyone else, just Bells.

I stand by what I said:

No Confidence In Her ability to Moderate. She's disruptive and accusatory and does so with intent. If the other mods wish to blind themselves to it- it speaks of the forum as a whole.
You guys just don't want to have to deal with the problem.

While we are on reductio ad absurdum:

8 year old steals a candy bar. Guard takes him out back and beats him to death. OK in your book?

Nope, sure isn't. I never said anything of the kind, nor expressed that a situation like that would be fine. I challenge you to find MY WORDS that say I'd be ok with that, considering MY words spoke of cops, guard, security DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM VIOLENCE ONLY.

But that question is not based on what I said, is it? It's based on the Image Bells Painted using her own words. And it's why her behavior is intolerable.
You're quoting BELLS Words there.

Oh my god, can we please stop talking about who flamed who?

In this case, the news said he attacked Security.

Later, the news said that it wasn't security.

So F.I.A- it isn't my fault if the news is faulty.
Your failure to critically assess the news at hand, the very thing you were berating others for doing, however, is your fault.

I made the post before I saw the more recent posts in the last couple of pages (EG Seagypsys post #76) so "But the situation changed!" In my opinion, is nothing more than a cop-out.

Oh yeah. I'm also not a former or has-been anything. I currently work in law enforcement.

I challenge you to find MY WORDS that say I'd be ok with that, considering MY words spoke of cops, guard, security DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM VIOLENCE ONLY.

Funny thing.

I was recently assaulted in my garage, in front of my children.

I was injured, and have the Dr's report to prove it.

I defneded myself without injuring my assailant, whom I am quite convinced would not have stopped had his initial attack been successful (under Florida law, I would have been justified in shooting him).

Funny thing.

I was recently assaulted in my garage, in front of my children.

I was injured, and have the Dr's report to prove it.

I defneded myself without injuring my assailant, whom I am quite convinced would not have stopped had his initial attack been successful (under Florida law, I would have been justified in shooting him).

Anecdotal. So what? YOU managed to not injure someone. But you did get injured.


I made the post before I saw the more recent posts in the last couple of pages (EG Seagypsys post #76) so "But the situation changed!" In my opinion, is nothing more than a cop-out.
Irrelevant.
The story is Irrelevant to the commentary I had actually made. You are ignoring Key Points I had made, Trippy.
I said, "There's not enough info on this case"
I said, "It's too soon to tell."
I also said I don't pity a man that assaults those trying to stop him from a crime.
That's when JDawg cut in and then Bells. If you want to claim I jumped the gun- So did they.
Don't change what I said, then claim that I changed it and call it a cop out. That's inaccurate. A Mod in here that was hammering repeated accusations of wording that was not made does not change what I actually said. She wasn't asking for clarification- this is her TACTIC.
She accuses you of thinking something horrifyingly far fetched and keeps repeating no matter how much you clarify her unwarranted accusations are false.
It's not innocent, it's a tactic. If it's not deliberate, someone needs to teach her better communication and listening skills.


The whole argument was entirely preventable. Had Bells LISTENED to what answers were given and questioned things appropriately, not blowing things way out of proportion, there would have been no argument.

This is why only Bells Instigates these far out arguments with me- and others.

Anecdotal
So what?

Vaccines were developed based on what was initially anecdotal evidence.



So what? YOU managed to not injure someone. But you did get injured.
I got injured, so what? I got injured because I was initially taken by surprise.

I would still have been injured had I injured my assailant, and my injuries would not have been any less.

What's you're point?

Punching someone in the face after they punch you in the face doesn't lessen your injuries, does it?

How I handled the situation had absolutely no bearing on the degree of injuries I received. In fact, the fact that I didn't respond by throwing a punch meant that I came out of the assault with fewer injuries than if I had.


The story is Irrelevant to the commentary I had actually made. You are ignoring Key Points I had made, Trippy.
I'm ignoring nothing, actually.


I said, "There's not enough info on this case"
I said, ":It's too soon to tell."
I also said I don't pity a man that assaults those trying to stop him from a crime.
And at every step you defended the guards actions, and questioned the reporting around the alleged shoplifters actions, but not once did you aknowledge that the employees interpretation of the events was accurate.

Every story has three sides, but only one of them is the truth.


Don't change what I said, then claim that I changed it and call it a cop out. That's inaccurate.
Don't change what you said?

Here's what you said:

I said that if more facts came to light, I'd probably view this case a little differently.

Here's how I paraphrased it:

"But the situation changed!" In my opinion, is nothing more than a cop-out.

Are you suggesting that new information hasn't come to light? Are you suggesting that your opinion in this case has not changed?

All so, note the qualifier in the first clause of the second sentence. That's probably the most important part.

So what?

Vaccines were developed based on what was initially anecdotal evidence.

I got injured, so what? I got injured because I was initially taken by surprise.

I would still have been injured had I injured my assailant, and my injuries would not have been any less.

What's you're point?
That it's irrelevant to anything that's been said. That's what.
In one instance, you were able to subdue an attacker without harming him. That's commendable, but you cannot assume that somehow will apply across the board and you should be well aware of that.
It's anecdotal and has no bearing here.



And at every step you defended the guards actions, and questioned the reporting around the alleged shoplifters actions, but not once did you aknowledge that the employees interpretation of the events was accurate.
Every step?!
REALLY? How many posts had we actually gone through by then, Trippy?
Every step...:rolleyes:
I made a general opinion and then JDawg and Bells stepped in with ABSURD character accusations, repeatedly hammering them and keeping me on the defensive.

Are you deliberately blinding yourself to that or is it unintentional?




Are you suggesting that new information hasn't come to light? Are you suggesting that your opinion in this case has not changed?

Irrelevant. I stated a general opinion right off the bat. I said that may change and if it DID NOT change- that would make me what you're trying to claim I am now.
So it's not a cop out at all- it's adjusting for the facts. Which still isn't very relevant to a general opinion anyway.

That it's irrelevant to anything that's been said. That's what.
In one instance, you were able to subdue an attacker without harming him. That's commendable, but you cannot assume that somehow will apply across the board and you should be well aware of that.
It's anecdotal and has no bearing here.
It has every bearing here. The problem is your ability to see it.


Every step?!
REALLY? How many posts had we actually gone through by then, Trippy?
Every step...:rolleyes:
I made a general opinion and then JDawg and Bells stepped in with ABSURD character accusations, repeatedly hammering them and keeping me on the defensive.

Are you deliberately blinding yourself to that or is it unintentional?
There you go, doing the exact same thing that you have just accused Bells of doing, and berating me for doing.


Irrelevant. I stated a general opinion right off the bat. I said that may change and if it DID NOT change- that would make me what you're trying to claim I am now.
So it's not a cop out at all- it's adjusting for the facts. Which still isn't very relevant to a general opinion anyway.
None of this attempt at justification has done anything to sway my opinion. Which I am as entitled to as you are of yours.

It has every bearing here. The problem is your ability to see it.
You can explain it to me...



There you go, doing the exact same thing that you have just accused Bells of doing, and berating me for doing.
I'm also posting while emotionally charged. Go back to page one and read forward and what led up to me being Emotionally Charged is plain as day. Consider that ONLY BELLS has gotten this reaction out of me. It is because she is intellectually dishonest about what Ive said and then keeps pushing that on me, pushing and pushing until I finally lose my temper. I get Fed Up with the pushing.
Again- it's plain as day and no other member has this effect.
You are also ignoring that Bells chooses to not diffuse situations. Why is that?


None of this attempt at justification has done anything to sway my opinion. Which I am as entitled to as you are of yours.
I'm not even sure what your opinion is.

That's when JDawg cut in and then Bells. If you want to claim I jumped the gun- So did they.

I did no such thing. I addressed your comments in general, not the specifics of the case. I addressed your insistence that security guards have no responsibilities when detaining an alleged criminal. The one assumption I did make (a conditional one, at that) was that if your detainee winds up dead, you probably did something wrong. And as it turns out, they did, because company policy is to disengage when a situation rises to that level.

That's when you started in with the macho BS about being a monster and how people like me need people like you to do the "dirty work."

You can explain it to me...


I'm also posting while emotionally charged. Go back to page one and read forward and what led up to me being Emotionally Charged is plain as day. Consider that ONLY BELLS has gotten this reaction out of me. It is because she is intellectually dishonest about what Ive said and then keeps pushing that on me, pushing and pushing until I finally lose my temper. I get Fed Up with the pushing.
Again- it's plain as day and no other member has this effect.
You are also ignoring that Bells chooses to not diffuse situations. Why is that?

I'm not even sure what your opinion is.

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?

I did no such thing. I addressed your comments in general, not the specifics of the case. I addressed your insistence that security guards have no responsibilities when detaining an alleged criminal. The one assumption I did make (a conditional one, at that) was that if your detainee winds up dead, you probably did something wrong. And as it turns out, they did, because company policy is to disengage when a situation rises to that level.

That's when you started in with the macho BS about being a monster and how people like me need people like you to do the "dirty work."

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.

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?

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.

I defneded myself without injuring my assailant,.......


thats settled then
kiwi's are pussies

You can explain it to me...
No I can't, you've made that clear.

I was, however, addressing a group of very specific points made earlier in the thread.


I'm also posting while emotionally charged.
Then walk away, it's that simple.


Go back to page one and read forward and what led up to me being Emotionally Charged is plain as day.
I've read this thread, in its entirety, and frankly that's an hour of my life that I'll never get back.


Consider that ONLY BELLS has gotten this reaction out of me. It is because she is intellectually dishonest about what Ive said and then keeps pushing that on me, pushing and pushing until I finally lose my temper. I get Fed Up with the pushing.
That's your opinion. Perhaps you simply couldn't see the point that Bells was making, just like you can't see the point I was with my annecdote.

Just as, all of the evidence available to me suggests you overlooked the scenario I posited.


Again- it's plain as day and no other member has this effect.
I wouldn't know, and to be honest, I lack the levels of interest required to go through your post history to confirm or refute this.


You are also ignoring that Bells chooses to not diffuse situations. Why is that?
It takes two to fight, but only one to break it up

Are you privy to all of the conversations I might be having with Bells?


I'm not even sure what your opinion is.
I thought I made it quite clear, or have you lost the context of that thread of the discussion already?

thats settled then
kiwi's are pussies

Come over here and say that (preferably in Otara).

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 :D

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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

:rolleyes:


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.

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.

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.

Dude, I hadn't responded to you for 37 posts.

And you are still going on as if I am still a part of this conversation with you. As in I broke it off 37 posts ago (as per this post of yours) and you are still going...

Back off and cool off.. Seriously..

Dude, I hadn't responded to you for 37 posts.

And you are still going on as if I am still a part of this conversation with you. As in I broke it off 37 posts ago (as per this post of yours) and you are still going...

Back off and cool off.. Seriously..

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.

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.

Oh yes, the "I'm da man" post..

You'll have to excuse us if we do respond to your posts (like the ones you made before and after that particular bold post).. It's what people do on forums. Respond. But 37 posts went by and you were still going on as if I was still in a discussion with you..


Back off and cool off.. Seriously..

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

Naw, it's just me, it seems.

Neverfly, you've managed to completely sidetrack from my comments, which were to make the following observations:



He got caught. I mean, what do you want? A notarized confession?
Where I live, until he is tried and convicted in a court of law, demonstrating that the charges have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the crime remains an allegation, and he is the alleged offender.

Regardless of the crime.

You could stab someone in front of thirty witnesses in broad daylight, killing them, but until you are tried and convicted in a court of law, and had the opportunity to defend yourself, you are the accused, and the crime is an allegation.

Perhaps the alleged shoplifter had a lapse in a moment of panic. Perhaps the alleged shoplifter panicked because they had a pre-existing medical condition (Angina, for example) that became their overwhelming imperative. Perhaps it became their overwhelming imperative because they had their angina medication in their car, rather than their pocket.

Perhaps they ran and fought the guards off simply because they knew they had a pre-existing medical condition, and that they needed to get to their vehicle to retrieve their medication because they could feel the precursor symptoms of an impending attack. Perhaps the guards in their fervor to 'catch a crook' misinterpreted the alleged shoplifters actions.
Because by your own admission, you're emotionally charged.

Do you see what you've done here?

We've gone from me making an observation, to you not liking the way I paraphrased you, to you twisting the conversation around to me having to defend Bells - all because you think I have ignored something that's irrelevant to my intial comments.

And yes, I've deleted one of my posts because I have no interest in engaging you regarding your apparent personal vendetta against Bells.

Oh my god, can we please stop talking about who flamed who?Thank you. This place is turning into a playground for third-graders. And since it is, it's worth repeating this:

The playground mantra, "It all started when he hit me back," is 100% correct. It takes at least two people to create a fight. If the party who feels injured does not fight back, there is no fight, and furthermore the person who landed the first blow is left standing there in front of everyone looking like a complete idiot.

We're all smart. We know who's right and wrong. So just let the idiots stand there looking like idiots. There's no need to defend ourselves against them, completely derailing a useful discusson in the process.

That was his punishment for shopping at Walmart.

Oh, who am I kidding, I love Walmart!

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) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghrDIQ-K8mg)

Neverfly, you've managed to completely sidetrack from my comments, which were to make the following observations:

Because by your own admission, you're emotionally charged.

Do you see what you've done here?

We've gone from me making an observation, to you not liking the way I paraphrased you, to you twisting the conversation around to me having to defend Bells - all because you think I have ignored something that's irrelevant to my intial comments.


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.

Very well-
Where I live, a person is Innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
However, in this instance you were only willing to extend this to the security guards, not the shoplifter. As far as any of us could tell, based on the posts you have made in this thread, you seemingly refused to even acknowledge the possibility.


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.
It is precisely what you did.


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:
It has every bearing on the situation. The argument that was being presented was that violence entitles violence. That because the alleged shoplifter had allegedly been violent towards the (at that point) security guards, the security guards were entitled to be violent with the alleged shoplifter. My point was that that's not neccessarily the case, and that it's not always neccessary to be violent to prevent further violence.

Arguably, it's possible at all times to prevent violence without being violent, there are a number of relatively passive moves that can, for example, disarm someone without injuring. Heh. I once heard Tai Chi described as "The art of helping people have accidents".


Some clarifications:
I do not believe these guys denied medical help willingly...
The moment they chose to engage him physically, and ignore his pleas rather than, for example, tell him to leave the soaps and offer medical assistance, this is precisely what they did - regardless of whether or not it was their immediate intent or concern.


...or that they "inflicted the death penalty."
Like it or not (and I must confess, I initially baulked at Bells' use of this phrase until I stopped and thought about it) that is the net consequence of what happened.
Rightly or wrongly, the staff prejudged the individual as being guilty of shoplifting.
Rightly or wrongly, the staff chose to ignore his pleas for help.
Those two factors appear to have resulted in, or contributed to his death.

Of course, having said that, there are no certainties, and under different circumstances, someone might have come out to find a body in the parking lot, and we'd be discussing a different headline.


I think that they attempted to stop what they believed was a thief.
Correct. However in doing so they made decisions and choices that appear to have contributed to the death of an individual.


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.
Very good.


It's also speculative...
I don't recall suggesting otherwise, but it is completely consistent with all the information available (even at the start of the thread), and is supported by some of the new information that has come out.


...and the Wal-mart employees had No Way Of Knowing that.
Yes they did. He told them. Once he told them, the only thing they had to do was convince him to wait for the paramedics.


He gasped, "I'm dying!" A lot of crooks do.
And there in lies the problem, or part of it. It's also part of the point that I have been making. Because the staff, who were not trained stock loss prevention officers, decided in advance that he was guilty of shoplifting, they assumed it was a ploy and reacted according to that assumption.

How many times have we seen this (for example) with the police? How many times has it been demonstrated that the assumptions we make about a person influence our perception of their actions?


Police had been called, were on the way and Arrived Just as they got this guy to the ground.
So then there was no need for them to wrestle him to the ground, as he wouldn't have made i out of the parking lot before the police got there.


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.
They made a judgement. That judgement was based on their perception, and their perception was coloured by their assumptions. As it turns out, that judgement appears to have been profoundly in error.


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.
Good for you.


If he was a thief that violently attacked Security guards, I'd have no sympathy for him.
And if someone dislikes that- Sue me.
And this is the statement that has generated so much ire in this thread. On the face of it, this statement appears to imply a number of things which you have objected to being infered from it. It also leads us back to my point with my annecdote (or part of it).

Do you not consider that the police have a duty to bring an alleged criminal to a court of law so that they may face Justice?
Do you not realize that sometimes that requires that the police have a duty of care to criminals to ensure that they survive to make it to court?
Do you not believe that every citizen has the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise - regardless of whether or not they've been detained on suspicion of comitting a crime?

It takes at least two people to create a fight.
It take two to fight, but only one to break it up.


If the party who feels injured does not fight back, there is no fight, and furthermore the person who landed the first blow is left standing there in front of everyone looking like a complete idiot.
There is a certain satisfaction to be gained from that, I must admit.

However, in this instance you were only willing to extend this to the security guards, not the shoplifter. As far as any of us could tell, based on the posts you have made in this thread, you seemingly refused to even acknowledge the possibility.
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.



It has every bearing on the situation. The argument that was being presented was that violence entitles violence. That because the alleged shoplifter had allegedly been violent towards the (at that point) security guards, the security guards were entitled to be violent with the alleged shoplifter. My point was that that's not neccessarily the case, and that it's not always neccessary to be violent to prevent further violence.
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.


Arguably, it's possible at all times to prevent violence without being violent, there are a number of relatively passive moves that can, for example, disarm someone without injuring. Heh. I once heard Tai Chi described as "The art of helping people have accidents".
Akaido as well. But most people don't have that kind of training and can only respond in a primitive way.


The moment they chose to engage him physically, and ignore his pleas rather than, for example, tell him to leave the soaps and offer medical assistance, this is precisely what they did - regardless of whether or not it was their immediate intent or concern.
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.




Rightly or wrongly, the staff prejudged the individual as being guilty of shoplifting.
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.


Rightly or wrongly, the staff chose to ignore his pleas for help.
Those two factors appear to have resulted in, or contributed to his death.
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.



Of course, having said that, there are no certainties, and under different circumstances, someone might have come out to find a body in the parking lot, and we'd be discussing a different headline.
True.


Yes they did. He told them. Once he told them, the only thing they had to do was convince him to wait for the paramedics.
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.



And there in lies the problem, or part of it. It's also part of the point that I have been making. Because the staff, who were not trained stock loss prevention officers, decided in advance that he was guilty of shoplifting, they assumed it was a ploy and reacted according to that assumption.
He very much acted the part and they can hardly be blamed for that assumption.


How many times have we seen this (for example) with the police? How many times has it been demonstrated that the assumptions we make about a person influence our perception of their actions?
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.



So then there was no need for them to wrestle him to the ground, as he wouldn't have made i out of the parking lot before the police got there.
They could not have known what moment the police would arrive- they knew to detain- You are being Unreasonable at this point.



They made a judgement. That judgement was based on their perception, and their perception was coloured by their assumptions. As it turns out, that judgement appears to have been profoundly in error.
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?


Do you not consider that the police have a duty to bring an alleged criminal to a court of law so that they may face Justice?
Yes.
But if he were to Violently attack them, they also have the right to injure him in self defense.


Do you not realize that sometimes that requires that the police have a duty of care to criminals to ensure that they survive to make it to court?
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.


Do you not believe that every citizen has the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise - regardless of whether or not they've been detained on suspicion of comitting a crime?
Yes.
But that still doesn't mean that we do not detain individuals caught in the act.

But I think that violence has its place and cannot always be labeled as wrong or negative.Violence is only justified in self-defense, and even that justification can be mitigated. If someone says he intends to harm you and starts chasing you, if you have no other option you can stop and fight. But if you're on a sidewalk full of people you can yell, "help," and (depending on how civilized the place is) a couple of people will come forward to let him know that if he does not desist, the three of you will easily overpower him and turn him over to the police, while inflicting minimal personal injury. Obviously this will not always work, but it illustrates my point that violence is not always the only way to respond to violence.

If you live in a country whose leaders tell you that the people in some other country want to conquer you and therefore you must join a military organization, learn how to use a gun, and travel to the other country and start killing them, in 99% of cases your leaders are at best exaggerating and at worst enlisting you fraudulently in a nefarious plot of their own that has nothing at all to do with your own welfare. In this case your best strategy is to emigrate rather than escalating the violence.
He had stolen goods (If they were not paid for- they are stolen) . . . ."Stealing" requires intent. People walk out of stores every day with goods they did not pay for, due to absentmindness, confusion, a cranky child, someone in the store frightening them, or sudden realization that they left a pot on the stove at home. There was no intent.
If he was feeling a heart attack come on, he did not run to the front counter and request an ambulance.Very few people respond calmly and rationally to a heart attack. Especially since the symptoms are not always recognizable. Sometimes they just have an overwhelming urge to go out into the sunshine and fresh air.
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?The next time you have a heart attack in a public place, please report back to us and let us know how rationally you behaved. It is a shock to your nervous system, and shock can make you completely irrational.
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?You keep asking the same question. People do seemingly dumb things like that every day, and there are a zillion reasons for it. I have, and I'm sure you have. If it didn't put us in a position that looked like we were committing crimes, then we were just lucky.
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.As I said in the thread about George May-He-Rot-In-Hell Zimmerman, cops are trained to quickly understand situations like this and make quick decisions that minimize the possibility of an unfortunate outcome. Rent-a-cops are not so well trained. Retail employees are not trained at all.

This is why they should just follow at a safe distance while reporting back to their own management or the police on a cellphone. If he drives off, get his license number.

If someone breaks a window in your house, climbs in while you're eating dinner with your family, frightens your children, kicks your dog out of the way, and tries to walk out with a $50,000 dollar painting that has sentimental value, no insurance company will cover it, and you can't afford to replace it, he has violated your personal dwelling, caused harm to your family, and is intent on causing you major financial harm. In this case you may feel justified in shooting him. As a pacifist I might not do the same, but at least I won't berate you for your decision.

But shoplifting from a department store? It's a public place, he's not violating anyone's privacy. It's strictly an economic crime and even if he gets away with it it's only a blip on the company's annual report. He should certainly be apprehended and if you have to put him in a painful hammerlock or simply trip him so he falls down on the floor and gets a headache, that's reasonable. But it's not a capital crime and to kill him for it is not civilized.

Violence is only justified in self-defense, and even that justification can be mitigated. If someone says he intends to harm you and starts chasing you, if you have no other option you can stop and fight. But if you're on a sidewalk full of people you can yell, "help," and (depending on how civilized the place is) a couple of people will come forward to let him know that if he does not desist, the three of you will easily overpower him and turn him over to the police, while inflicting minimal personal injury. Obviously this will not always work, but it illustrates my point that violence is not always the only way to respond to violence.
Always or not- It has it's place. I cannot think of anything, off hand, that always applies. Either positive or negative.


There was no intent.
In this case, none of us know if he had intent or not.


cops are trained to quickly understand situations like this and make quick decisions that minimize the possibility of an unfortunate outcome. Rent-a-cops are not so well trained. Retail employees are not trained at all.
THis is a good point.
And I agree- they did the best they knew how to do. It's NOT a case of beating some man into the ground, apparently.


This is why they should just follow at a safe distance while reporting back to their own management or the police on a cellphone. If he drives off, get his license number.
That's one option. But it's not WRONG to chase a man whose committing a crime down and detain, him either. In fact, in many cases, it's a very good thing that they did.
In this case- it was more tragic. None of them are in a position to win Randi's Million dollars.
They made a judgment call and sure- after the fact, people can use hindsight a plenty.


If someone breaks a window in your house, climbs in while you're eating dinner with your family, frightens your children, kicks your dog out of the way, and tries to walk out with a $50,000 dollar painting that has sentimental value, no insurance company will cover it, and you can't afford to replace it, he has violated your personal dwelling, caused harm to your family, and is intent on causing you major financial harm. In this case you may feel justified in shooting him. As a pacifist I might not do the same, but at least I won't berate you for your decision.
I'm glad we agree on this because, painting be damned, if he goes near my kid, he's a goner. Sometimes, you take no chances and assume the worst when a man puts himself in that position, EH?

Bold Mine:


But shoplifting from a department store? It's a public place, he's not violating anyone's privacy. It's strictly an economic crime and even if he gets away with it it's only a blip on the company's annual report. He should certainly be apprehended and if you have to put him in a painful hammerlock or simply trip him so he falls down on the floor and gets a headache, that's reasonable. But it's not a capital crime and to kill him for it is not civilized.
They did not commit a capitol Crime Fraggle Rocker. What you put in that sentence and I put in bold, I find very, very interesting.
In fact, we're not sure if he tripped or was tackled.
They did not go and Kill the man. What killed him may have killed him. We cannot say at this time if they even contributed to the circumstances and we may never be able to.

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.
Yes, you stated that it was too early to tell.
You even stated that the staff involved should have the curtosey of "Innocent until proven guilty".
But at no point did you extend that to the alleged shoplifter, and I seem to recall you reacting adversely when someone suggested that it should be.


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.
Personally, I believe that violence should only ever be an absolute last resort.

But then, people who know me in person generally lable me as being one of the most passive people I know.

My point, which you seem to have missed is that neccessary force does not imply the use of violence.


Akaido as well. But most people don't have that kind of training and can only respond in a primitive way.
I don't recall suggesting they did, or should.


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."
Yes, they reasonably can.

Detaining someone does not neccessitate restraining someone, only removing their means of escape.

An equally valid result would have been to offer assistance "Okay, we can help you, but only if you let us look after the trolley for you." Assuming he was trying to get to a vehicle, removing the trolley and retaining his car keys after unlocking his door for him would have sufficed as detentionm allowed him to get any medication he may have been seeking and perhaps even prevented his death.

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?[/quote]
I don't recall suggesting they should let him runaway. This is a non-sequitere based on a reductio ad absurdum, which you have used to setup a strawman hypothesis.

At no point have I stated or implied that he should neccessarily have been allowed to walk free.


And remember- these are not even cops with training.
Precisely. They didn't even have WalMart Security officer training, and apparently were unaware of Walmart Policy when it comes to circumstances such as these.


Additionally, it was only a matter of seconds.
Why did you bold this? It seems un-neccessary.

But to address your point. What is your point? Maybe it's a function of intelligence and the fact that I am smarter than something like 99% of the population, but in the one or two seconds in which I had to respond to being assaulted from behind, I was able two weigh up three seperate scenarios, evaluate their likely outcomes, and take the most appropriate course of action.


And they pursued- but there is nothing wrong with that.
I don't recall stating or implying that there was.


He had stolen goods (If they were not paid for- they are stolen) outside of the store and was fleeing on foot.
Theft requires demonstration of mens rea. There is no information that has been made available which unequivicaly demonstrates mens rea, and some information that suggests it was absent entirely.


Can they be blamed? I think not.
Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you think that the actions (which violated company policy) of the staff members (that had no training in security) were blameless.

My point, which you're either ignoring, or have not understood, is that these staff members who had no training, were acting outside company policy, and had other reasonable courses of action available to them, assumed they were dealing with a criminal and treated him accordingly.



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.
Right, but the point is that they made the conscious choice not to even try to render assistance, instead, they judged him as guilty of shoplifting, and acted according to that judgement, rather than trying to render assistance and ascertain the facts of the matter.


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.
I've addressed this point already.

Perhaps he had been warned that if he observed certain symptoms, he had on average so much time to take a particular medication, and simply did not think that an ambulance would be able to make it in time to help him. So he made a beeline for his car, and his medication.


He may have contributed to his death... But it may have been a certain thing no matter what they did.
A point which I have already explicitly acknowledged and raised with you in a previous post, remember?


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.
What's your point here?

You appear to be attempting to contradict me, and yet all you've done is restate what I have said in previous posts (in fact, in the post you're replying to. Did you not read the post in its entirety before you replied?


He made a claim half-way through Crime Prevention. Could it really be taken seriously in the matter of seconds that they had?
A crime prevention that was being undertaken by staff with no training, and seemingly acting outside company policy.

But yes, it should absolutely have been taken seriously.


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.
Some people might be tempted to suggest you're being intellectually dishonest here, after all, I raised this very point in my first post in this thread.

I have already explicitly addressed this point. You can go back to my original post, or the restatement I made of it 12 or so hours ago.


He very much acted the part and they can hardly be blamed for that assumption.
Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be held accountable for their assumptions, no mater how justified they might seem at the time?

Are you not wanting Bells to be held accountable for what appear to be her assumptions about you?

Which is it?


I think this line plays heavily into the argument between Bells and I.
Now- watch Bells or I justify our perceptions.
In making this statement, you miss the point that was being made.


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.
Yes they can, and they should, especially when they are acting outside of company policy and have had no training in what they were doing.

A more appropriate course of action would have been to follow him to his vehicle and record is liscence plate number. That combined with the security camera footage would have provided police with all of the evidence they required to ensure that justice was served.

Now that the alleged shoplifter is dead, justice can not be served, because he has no capacity to defend himself in a court of law, which is the whole point of the justice system - to give alleged criminals the opportunity to defend and justify their actions.


You nor I nor anyone else in this thread KNOWS that.
I don't recall having claimed to know anything, above and beyond what has been reported in the media.


They could not have known what moment the police would arrive- they knew to detain- You are being Unreasonable at this point.
No i'm not. Detention does not neccessitate restraint. There was a far more reasonable course of action available to them which might have prevented the death.


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.
Again. Some might construe this as intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps an attempt at inciting a flamewar.

I am doing two things.
The first thing I am doing is not making any assumption about the facts of the matter, including assuming mens rea on behalf of the alleged shoplifter.
The second thing I am doing is arguing a counterpoint by pointing out an alternative set of events which fits the available information as well as your assertions do.


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?
I can answer that question, have answered that question, and even addressed that point in my initial post.


Yes.
But if he were to Violently attack them, they also have the right to injure him in self defense.
They have the right to subdue and to use neccessary force, which is not the same thing.


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.
Gaining control of the situation does not neccessitate the use of violence, neither does protecting the safety of others.

What it does require is keeping a cool head and a keen mind to accurately assess the situation and determine what is neccessary.


Many criminals even cause more injury to themselves during their thrashing, which gets ignored until he is subdued.
Yes. And?


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.
Bullocks.

This is a non-sequiter based on an argumentum ad absurdum, leading to a strawman hypothesis.


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.
All of this misses the point, and fails to address what has actually been said. Why? Because it addresses the strawman hypothesis you have formulated, rather than the argument actually being presented.

He should certainly be apprehended and if you have to put him in a painful hammerlock or simply trip him so he falls down on the floor and gets a headache, that's reasonable.


expected outcomes are just that, expected but not guaranteed
i am shocked....very shocked, that you are willing to take that risk
it indicates a degree of callousness towards life and limb

ever seen the final destination movies where ordinary events turn into life threatening ones?

/smirk

Yes, you stated that it was too early to tell.
You even stated that the staff involved should have the curtosey of "Innocent until proven guilty".
But at no point did you extend that to the alleged shoplifter, and I seem to recall you reacting adversely when someone suggested that it should be.
I jumped the gun and assumed too much.



My point, which you seem to have missed is that neccessary force does not imply the use of violence.
It does not always lack it either. Let's be blunt- You're more of a pacifist than I am. That's fine. I believe that violence can be a positive thing and has it's place. I don't expect agreement from some people on that- But I would expect the courtesy to not get accused of far worse things I've never said over it.


I don't recall suggesting they did, or should.
You did not.
However, my point was that since most people are not highly trained Akaido masters, you will need to tolerate more primitive forms of violence when people defend themselves.



Yes, they reasonably can.

Detaining someone does not neccessitate restraining someone, only removing their means of escape.
According to the reported events, they had just gotten him to the ground when the police arrived.
We are unsure if he fell on his own or was tackled.
This means: They had no time for all that fluff you just offered- this was a matter of SECONDS. They had just reached him when Covina PD arrived.



I don't recall suggesting they should let him runaway. This is a non-sequitere based on a reductio ad absurdum, which you have used to setup a strawman hypothesis.
Let me clarify: If they must step back- disengage etc- yes, they are letting him get away. This WAS advocated. You are citing fallacies not being used. Non sequitur- "It does not follow." Yes , if the advocated response is to disengage- it is allowing a fleeing person to run away. Reductio - ad absurdm and strawman hypothesis are irrelevant as this has been known- we do not have first hand knowledge of the incident. As for strawmen- see the last comment on this post.


Precisely. They didn't even have WalMart Security officer training, and apparently were unaware of Walmart Policy when it comes to circumstances such as these.
Possibly, we're not sure of how much they knew about Policy. The policy does allow for self defense, according to Gee.
It may not apply in this case.


Why did you bold this? It seems un-neccessary.
Apparently it was necessary as I've had to repeat that only a matter of seconds was available above- after you read the bolded bit, eh?


But to address your point. What is your point? Maybe it's a function of intelligence and the fact that I am smarter than something like 99% of the population, but in the one or two seconds in which I had to respond to being assaulted from behind, I was able two weigh up three seperate scenarios, evaluate their likely outcomes, and take the most appropriate course of action.
You are, if law enforcement- Trained. What you just described was not conscious thought but instilled training.

Are you saying you consciously thought up three things in less than a Second Trippy?


Theft requires demonstration of mens rea. There is no information that has been made available which unequivicaly demonstrates mens rea, and some information that suggests it was absent entirely.
Irrelevant to the time they had to react. That was detaining- not a court of law. Detaining for questioning does not require mens rea, not an alibi or anything of the kind. If you are observed to be engaging in the possible crime, could be about to commit a crime or could have just committed a crime, you can be detained and questioned. It's called Probable Cause.



Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you think that the actions (which violated company policy) of the staff members (that had no training in security) were blameless.
Thanks, glad I was clear.
Because the Policy mentions Disengaging - however, these guys had pursued and caught up to- they had engaged at the time of Covina Police arrival. That matter of seconds I bolded above applies here.

assumed they were dealing with a criminal and treated him accordingly.
He fled the store with unpaid for products- Probable Cause.


Right, but the point is that they made the conscious choice not to even try to render assistance, instead, they judged him as guilty of shoplifting, and acted according to that judgement, rather than trying to render assistance and ascertain the facts of the matter.
Matter of Unnecessary bolding goes here.
Matter of Seconds and probable cause.


Perhaps he had been warned that if he observed certain symptoms, he had on average so much time to take a particular medication, and simply did not think that an ambulance would be able to make it in time to help him. So he made a beeline for his car, and his medication.
I'm no doctor but...
I've never heard of any medication like that.
Now, with heart medication, it is possible that it can help to alleviate or even prevent a heart attack in time. But it seems more likely that someone in cardiac arrest would demand attention and beg someone to run to his car for him. He was not alone- He had two friends with him.


What's your point here?

You appear to be attempting to contradict me, and yet all you've done is restate what I have said in previous posts (in fact, in the post you're replying to. Did you not read the post in its entirety before you replied?
You had said they contributed to his death. You repeatedly say they had plenty of Other Options before them. What I've read is that you think that had they not interfered, he would still be alive.
My point is that you do not know that.


Some people might be tempted to suggest you're being intellectually dishonest here, after all, I raised this very point in my first post in this thread.
Just because you threw out a speculation doesn't mean the question's been answered. That hardly is worth that temptation, Trippy- you're scraping the bottom of the barrel on that one.


Are you not wanting Bells to be held accountable for what appear to be her assumptions about you?
Bells accountability pertains to how she aggressively makes far fetched assumptions. In the case of WalMart- their assumptions were reasonable- a Man Fled With Unpaid For Goods. That happened. All the rhetoric in the world won't change that.

My wording did NOT imply the death penalty was inflicted considering that you nor Bells have any idea if those guys even played any role in that mans death- truly.
Think about it- The time it would have taken for him to DIGEST A PILL wouldn't have saved him if he was in that much distress at that time. That bolded bit about a matter of seconds goes here.


A more appropriate course of action would have been to follow him to his vehicle and record is liscence plate number. That combined with the security camera footage would have provided police with all of the evidence they required to ensure that justice was served.
Hindsight is 20/20 for untrained employees, eh?



Again. Some might construe this as intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps an attempt at inciting a flamewar.
Bull crap.
When I speculated that he was entirely innocent of theft- you said, "Very Good!"
I said it seems to me, You're overreaching to say that I'm being dishonest or trying to flame and you know it.


This is a non-sequiter based on an argumentum ad absurdum, leading to a strawman hypothesis.

All of this misses the point, and fails to address what has actually been said. Why? Because it addresses the strawman hypothesis you have formulated, rather than the argument actually being presented.

Pot, meet kettle. All your speculations about force, alternatives and innocence by means of a medical panic are straw men by the grounds you're using them by; after all, you admit you do not know any more facts than any of the rest of us, right? So, if you're trying to claim I'm running with a strawman, you are equally as guilty.

are physical apprehensions the purview of loss prevention or management and not rank and file?

i think so

are physical apprehensions the purview of loss prevention or management and not rank and file?

i think so

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/press_release/10552890/wal-mart-shrink-on-the-rise

I jumped the gun and assumed too much.
Correct. My point is made.


It does not always lack it either. Let's be blunt- You're more of a pacifist than I am. That's fine. I believe that violence can be a positive thing and has it's place. I don't expect agreement from some people on that- But I would expect the courtesy to not get accused of far worse things I've never said over it.
By pursuing this, you demonstrate - at least to me, that you still haven't understoof the point being made.

The truth of the matter is you have no evidence to suggest that I am any more of a pacifist than you are, only that I am less ready to injure another than you are.


You did not.
However, my point was that since most people are not highly trained Akaido masters, you will need to tolerate more primitive forms of violence when people defend themselves.
You don't have to be a highly trained Akaido master to understand how to block a punch, or for that matter, to understand that under most circumstances responding to a punch with a punch is only going to inflame matters further.


According to the reported events, they had just gotten him to the ground when the police arrived.
We are unsure if he fell on his own or was tackled.
This means: They had no time for all that fluff you just offered- this was a matter of SECONDS. They had just reached him when Covina PD arrived.
Bullocks.

How long does it take to say "Can we help you?", or for that matter "Leave the trolley and we'll give you a hand"?


Let me clarify: If they must step back- disengage etc- yes, they are letting him get away. This WAS advocated.
No, what was pointed out was that company policy dictates that under some circumstances they are to disengage. Besides, the only thing that is needed for an arrest is the camera footage and the plate number.


Possibly, we're not sure of how much they knew about Policy. The policy does allow for self defense, according to Gee.
It may not apply in this case.
Every job I have ever had, an employees first duty is to familiarize themselves with company policy.


Apparently it was necessary as I've had to repeat that only a matter of seconds was available above- after you read the bolded bit, eh?
Antagonism, after having spent how many pages complaining about being antagonized?


You are, if law enforcement- Trained.
I said I was in law enforcement, I didn't say I was a police officer.


What you just described was not conscious thought but instilled training.

Are you saying you consciously thought up three things in less than a Second Trippy?
Putting words in my mouth after having spent how many pages complaining about Bells putting words in your mouth? Especially after having a go at me lastnight about it?

Really.

What I said was that "In the one or two seconds I had available to me to respond, I assessed three scenarios and their likely outcomes".


Irrelevant to the time they had to react...
...That matter of seconds I bolded above applies here...
...Matter of Unnecessary bolding goes here....
...Matter of Seconds and probable cause....
Repeating this assertion does nothing to strengthen your argument.

Meanwhile, it's more antagonism, all based on a strawman hypothesis, which itself is based on an argument from ignorance. You can't believe that somebody can think "Hey, maybe he's right" then call out "Leave the trolley and let us help" in a matter of a few seconds, therefore because you can not imagine it happening, it can not happen. Incidentally? I don't recall having seen anything that suggested that it was a matter of "one or two seconds", and some things to suggest that it may have been tens of seconds.

Clearly enough time had elapsed for the police to respond to the call-out. Now, while I don't know enough about the local geography to be be able to say anything definitive, what I do know is that in Orange County, the quickest (average, using 2006 data) response time is 2:36, and the slowest is 9:12.

So to argue that they only had seconds available to them seems misleading to me.


I'm no doctor but...
I've never heard of any medication like that.
I'm no doctor either, but at least I can think of a couple of relevant examples
Epipen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epipen).
Anaphylaxis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphylaxis)
Angina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angina) treated with a vasdilator (eg nitro spray).
My personal favourite (although not relevant aside from illustrating my pont further): Vasa previa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_previa).
Vasia previa is my personal favourite because I have had personal experience with it. My wife was diagnosed with it, and we were told that if she started bleeding we had about two minutes to get her to the hospital (they weren't sure if it was her vein, or babies vein). I got woken up at 4am one morning by my wife screaming in panic, and wound up doing 130-150 kph through a 50kph zone because I knew that by the time the ambulance got her to hospital it could be too late, however, at that stage there would still have been a chance for an emergency c-section which might have saved babies life.

Let me tell you, if red blue lights had flashed me from behind, I would not have stopped for them, and I certainly would not have stopped to explain the situation to the police officer once I got to the hospital. Not until I got my wife up to the maternity ward at any rate.

But again, here we're dealing with your lack of imagination, rather than reality.


Now, with heart medication, it is possible that it can help to alleviate or even prevent a heart attack in time. But it seems more likely that someone in cardiac arrest would demand attention and beg someone to run to his car for him. He was not alone- He had two friends with him.
That's your opinion, it's not reality.


You had said they contributed to his death.
No I didn't. Again, you're being dishonest and putting words in my mouth, the very same things that you have just spent how many pages complaining about Bells doing to you?

I did not state it as a fact, I suggested the possibility. I made it quite clear "These two factors APPEAR to have resulted in or CONTRIBUTED TO" his death. I then went on to say: "Of course, having said that, there are no certainties, and under different circumstances, someone might have come out to find a body in the parking lot, and we'd be discussing a different headline." And subsequently, to the best of my recollection have always included the qualifier "appears to have". I've been quite clear through this, and very specific with my language. At least, I have attempted to be, so for you to claim this smacks of dishonesty.


You repeatedly say they had plenty of Other Options before them. What I've read is that you think that had they not interfered, he would still be alive.
No, that's not what I suggested. The most I have suggested is that he might still be alive if they had not prevented him from reaching his car. A subtle, but important difference, which you thus far have failed to grasp. As illustrated with your next comment.


My point is that you do not know that.
I haven't claimed to know anything, the only thing I have done is point out a possibile explanation which had not (as far as I was aware at the time at least) been addressed, that as it turns out, was equally, or more consistent with evidence that subsequently became available.


Just because you threw out a speculation doesn't mean the question's been answered. That hardly is worth that temptation, Trippy- you're scraping the bottom of the barrel on that one.
You claimed it hadn't been answered.
I had previously specifcaly addressed the point, by pointing out a set or circumstances by which it might reasonably occur.
Therefore an answer to your question had previously been provided and your claim that it was unanswered was demonstrably false.


Bells accountability pertains to how she aggressively makes far fetched assumptions. In the case of WalMart- their assumptions were reasonable- a Man Fled With Unpaid For Goods. That happened. All the rhetoric in the world won't change that.
You're missing the point that I was making.


My wording did NOT imply the death penalty was inflicted considering that you nor Bells have any idea if those guys even played any role in that mans death- truly.
Think about it- The time it would have taken for him to DIGEST A PILL wouldn't have saved him if he was in that much distress at that time. That bolded bit about a matter of seconds goes here.
You're aware that not all medicines require being digested. Some are absorbed directly into the bloodstream through the lungs, or by injection?


Hindsight is 20/20 for untrained employees, eh?
What's your point here?

I've worked in a chainstore, on the shop floor, and as far as stock shrinkage goes, we were told that if we saw anything, not to confront the individual directly, but to let a manager or security officer know. They're the ones that have the training to handle the situation, and get paid to take the risks.


Bull crap.
When I speculated that he was entirely innocent of theft- you said, "Very Good!"
I said it seems to me, You're overreaching to say that I'm being dishonest or trying to flame and you know it.
Correct.

I congratulated you for apparently understanding the point being made. In the portion you are responding to, however, I was berating you for making an assertion that was demonstrably false according to the information you had at the time.


Pot, meet kettle. All your speculations about force, alternatives and innocence by means of a medical panic are straw men by the grounds you're using them by; after all, you admit you do not know any more facts than any of the rest of us, right? So, if you're trying to claim I'm running with a strawman, you are equally as guilty.
Do you understand what a strawman hypothesis is?

The most I have stated is that there may not have been a need to physically restrain him, that detaining him at his vehicle to enable him to access it without leaving the premisis may have been sufficient to meet the staffs needs as well as the alleged shoplifters needs.

This is not the same as suggesting that he should not have been detained, and is a far cry from suggesting that individuals caught in the act of committing a crime shoul not be detained.

So your response: "But that still doesn't mean that we do not detain individuals caught in the act." is addressing a strawman hypothesis, because not only is not what I actually said, but it's also not implied by anything I have said so far.

Meanwhile, all I have done is forward the hypothesis that the alleged shoplifters actions were innocent, and misinterpreted by the WalMart staff, who were acting according to their perceptions, which were being influenced by their assumptions. And the most I have said about their assumptions is that, regardless of how reaonable they may have been, they may have been mistaken.

None of which even remotely suggests that "we do not detain individuals caught in the act."

Do you understand now?

are physical apprehensions the purview of loss prevention or management and not rank and file?

i think so

In my experience, from many moons ago, you are correct sir.

There are people in the store who have training on how to handle the situation and get paid to take the risk. The general advice to floorstaff is notify them, and let them handle it.

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/press_release/10552890/wal-mart-shrink-on-the-rise


...Flickinger and other analysts say the increase in theft may be tied to Wal-Mart's highly publicized decision last year to no longer prosecute minor cases of shoplifting in order to focus on organized shoplifting rings...


Wal-Mart also may have been spooked by worries about lawsuits from wrongful death, unlawful imprisonment and other legal issues related to aggressively chasing down shoplifters. In March, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $750,000 to the family of a suspected shoplifter who suffocated to death as loss prevention workers held him down in a parking lot outside a store in Atascocita, Texas. The shoplifter died in August 2005 in a parking lot, according to published reports.

:roflmao:

These posts are getting way too long.


By pursuing this, you demonstrate - at least to me, that you still haven't understoof the point being made.
Clarify the point, then. Claiming over and over that I'm not understanding doesn't really clarify anything.

The truth of the matter is you have no evidence to suggest that I am any more of a pacifist than you are, only that I am less ready to injure another than you are.
NO EVIDENCE?
You said your closest folks refer to you that way- that's evidence, Trippy.


But then, people who know me in person generally lable me as being one of the most passive people I know.
Considering I'm a hard nosed mountain man- it's evidence that you are more pacifist than I am.
You're straining at gnats and I suspect that you're doing so in an attempt- as you do later in your post- to claim I'm "putting words in your mouth" in an attempt to make it appear I'm guilty of what I claimed Bells was doing.
If so, this would count as "Intellectual Dishonesty," Trippy, were you doing so intentionally...



You don't have to be a highly trained Akaido master to understand how to block a punch, or for that matter, to understand that under most circumstances responding to a punch with a punch is only going to inflame matters further.
Or knock the other guy out and render him inert...



Bullocks.

How long does it take to say "Can we help you?", or for that matter "Leave the trolley and we'll give you a hand"?
Fleeing with Unpaid For Good.
Probable Cause.
Bold Mine:


No, what was pointed out was that company policy dictates that under some circumstances they are to disengage. Besides, the only thing that is needed for an arrest is the camera footage and the plate number.
What are those circumstances?


I said I was in law enforcement, I didn't say I was a police officer.
Good, because I said Law Enforcement and I did not say you were a cop.



Putting words in my mouth after having spent how many pages complaining about Bells putting words in your mouth? Especially after having a go at me lastnight about it?
No.
I asked you if you thought up three things in less than a second- which is Vastly Different from asking me- repeatedly- across many posts- if I believe security can just off a guy.


What I said was that "In the one or two seconds I had available to me to respond, I assessed three scenarios and their likely outcomes".
Which is not what consciously thinking out options is.
These guys weighed it and made a decision, that after the fact, you disagree with.



Repeating this assertion does nothing to strengthen your argument.
Yes, it does.


Meanwhile, it's more antagonism, all based on a strawman hypothesis, which itself is based on an argument from ignorance.
No, it is based on the News Reports that say:
The man left the store with unpaid goods. He made it to a speebump when they intercepted him. All were Running.
How long does this take?
Not a strawman, Trippy. I did not make that up- that is what is REPORTED. Applying fallacies where they do not apply is Intellectual Dishonesty.


You can't believe that somebody can think "Hey, maybe he's right" then call out "Leave the trolley and let us help"
Man fleeing with Unpaid Merchandise. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?!
Do you call out to a man running form a bank with a sack of money in his hand, "How can I help you?" No, you do not.
Talk about Strawmen...


Clearly enough time had elapsed for the police to respond to the call-out.
Averages are averages but you have no idea how long it took for these Officers to arrive. Where I live, you see patrol cars sitting outside of Wal-Mart waiting on calls all the time. The officers that responded could have been only a block away when the call came in.



So to argue that they only had seconds available to them seems misleading to me.
Take it up with the authors of the news articles.


I'm no doctor either, but at least I can think of a couple of relevant examples
Epipen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epipen).
Anaphylaxis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphylaxis)
Angina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angina) treated with a vasdilator (eg nitro spray).
My personal favourite (although not relevant aside from illustrating my pont further): Vasa previa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_previa).
Vasia previa is my personal favourite because I have had personal experience with it. My wife was diagnosed with it, and we were told that if she started bleeding we had about two minutes to get her to the hospital (they weren't sure if it was her vein, or babies vein). I got woken up at 4am one morning by my wife screaming in panic, and wound up doing 130-150 kph through a 50kph zone because I knew that by the time the ambulance got her to hospital it could be too late, however, at that stage there would still have been a chance for an emergency c-section which might have saved babies life.
I find this interesting because you say here (And I agree with you) that you were breaking the law and speeding. You deemed that necessary, however, by speeding, you put others at risk. You deemed it an acceptable risk.
I'll have to search up the article here, but a man sometime back had his dog hit by a car. He put the dog in the car and rushed him to the vet. Now, I've owned dogs all my life... I understand. Sadly- he was speeding, struck another vehicle, and killed the child inside of it. I do not know if the child was restrained or not.
But the child did die. The man was unaware of this, quickly left contact info and proceeded to the vet. The police went to the vet to make the arrest.
Tragic- very tragic tale and to me, the man did not do anything truly wrong, even though he did do something wrong.
You might want to think about this.


That's your opinion, it's not reality.
No. It's speculation and neither of us know what really happened.


No I didn't. Again, you're being dishonest and putting words in my mouth, the very same things that you have just spent how many pages complaining about Bells doing to you?
Inaccurate.
What I said was very close to what you said. You are trying to nitpick to make an invalid point.
You said, May Appear? Fine.
Bells said, You advocate "inflicting the Death Penalty by rent-a-cops?"
One of those is very far fetched and uncalled for.

You're trying way too hard here, trippy.

so for you to claim this smacks of dishonesty.
Smacks more of not remembering you being all specifical about "contributed" or "could have contributed."
Claiming that's dishonest is you trying too hard to make it appear as though I was being as far fetched as Bells was. It won't work.

If you are planning to continue this tactic- I suggest we stop discussing the issue.



I haven't claimed to know anything, the only thing I have done is point out a possibile explanation
I've done the same...



You claimed it hadn't been answered.
I had previously specifcaly addressed the point, by pointing out a set or circumstances by which it might reasonably occur.
Therefore an answer to your question had previously been provided and your claim that it was unanswered was demonstrably false.
Trippy- speculations are not answers. An answer would be providing information as to what really happened. Does that clarify what I'm thinking?


You're aware that not all medicines require being digested. Some are absorbed directly into the bloodstream through the lungs, or by injection?
Speculation- true.
We must await autopsy.

...regardless of how reaonable they may have been, they may have been mistaken.

None of which even remotely suggests that "we do not detain individuals caught in the act."

Do you understand now?
I have said very similar- that they had probable cause.
Yet, you seem resistant to that. Why?

Wal-Mart also may have been spooked by worries about lawsuits from wrongful death, unlawful imprisonment and other legal issues related to aggressively chasing down shoplifters. In March, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $750,000 to the family of a suspected shoplifter who suffocated to death as loss prevention workers held him down in a parking lot outside a store in Atascocita, Texas. The shoplifter died in August 2005 in a parking lot, according to published reports.

:roflmao:

Yeah kinda blew me away too...:bugeye:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009381123_webyelmcrash25.html

Correction: child had disfiguring injuries but survived.

8 pages for a case where all that is know is "person appeared to be in medical distress, was detained, was in need of medical care when police arrived, died before reaching hospital"

Now as I said earlier this happens WAY to often (police and security need to be better trained that pressure on a face down person can be lethal and increasing that because they are stuggling to breath is tandermount to sticking a plastic bag over there face) but really. Unless there is more released any "judgements" about this are nothing but speculation

These posts are getting way too long.

Clarify the point, then. Claiming over and over that I'm not understanding doesn't really clarify anything.
I've already made it clear, I've also suggested that if you haven't understood it, you're not going to.


NO EVIDENCE?
You said your closest folks refer to you that way- that's evidence, Trippy.
Right. For one reason and another, that's the way they perceive me.

People are like the truth. Every person has three selves.
The self they show to other people.
The self they show themselves.
The true self.

The only thing you can honestly say is that that is how people perceive me. It says nothing about how I might react to a home invasion. You can't even infer anything from what I've said about the recent assault other than I perceived him as being a low level of threat.

As I said, you have no evidence to base that assertion on.


Considering I'm a hard nosed mountain man- it's evidence that you are more pacifist than I am.
No it's not.

What do you know about my background? Nothing. What if I said I've been in more fights than I can count, and have hunted, killed, and prepared my own meat? What of your hypothesis then?

After all, according to you, you have to be trained to a high level of martial arts to be able to defend yourself passively, right?

Maybe I'm just highly trained and confident.


You're straining at gnats and I suspect that you're doing so in an attempt- as you do later in your post- to claim I'm "putting words in your mouth" in an attempt to make it appear I'm guilty of what I claimed Bells was doing.
If so, this would count as "Intellectual Dishonesty," Trippy, were you doing so intentionally...
I'm calling it as I see it. Although I'm not surprised you would come at this.


Or knock the other guy out and render him inert...

Fleeing with Unpaid For Good.
Probable Cause.
:Sigh: I see we've learned nothing from this discussion.

Have you even bothered looking up the relationship between probable cause and mens rea? Or are you relying on CSI: Miami for your legal advice?


What are those circumstances?
They've been made clear in the first 50 posts or so, I feel no compunction to restate them.


Good, because I said Law Enforcement and I did not say you were a cop.
Not explicitly, no.


No.
I asked you if you thought up three things in less than a second- which is Vastly Different from asking me- repeatedly- across many posts- if I believe security can just off a guy.
No, it is precisely what you did.


Which is not what consciously thinking out options is.
These guys weighed it and made a decision, that after the fact, you disagree with.
:sigh:
Now you're telling me what I did or did not do? I'm telling you that I consciously weighed the options and their consequences. You can accept that or go away, I don't really care which.


Yes, it does.
No it doesn't. It's actually a logical fallacy (I forget the name off the top of my head).


No, it is based on the News Reports that say:
The man left the store with unpaid goods. He made it to a speebump when they intercepted him. All were Running.
How long does this take?
Depends on the distance covered, and how much of a head start he had on the employees, as well as how fast everybody involved was moving.


Not a strawman, Trippy. I did not make that up- that is what is REPORTED. Applying fallacies where they do not apply is Intellectual Dishonesty.
It is a strawman. None of the articles are as specific about the timing as you are. Certainly he had enough time to call out "I'm dying!" not once, but twice before being restrained.


Man fleeing with Unpaid Merchandise. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?!
A man who, according to the police was obviously in medical distress.
A man who, according to a witness may have fell rather than being caught or tackled.
A man who, according to a witness called out twice that he was dying.

Those strike me as three good reasons. Unless you assume guilt on his part to begin with.


Do you call out to a man running form a bank with a sack of money in his hand, "How can I help you?" No, you do not.
Talk about Strawmen...
Reductio ad absurdum.
I might as well ask you if its okay to shoot a four year old for stealing a lollipop, or if you're okay with walmart staff metting out the death penalty for petty crimes (Sorry Bells, couldn't help myself).


Averages are averages but you have no idea how long it took for these Officers to arrive. Where I live, you see patrol cars sitting outside of Wal-Mart waiting on calls all the time. The officers that responded could have been only a block away when the call came in.
:Sigh:
There you ago again, restating part of my point in order to try and contradict me.
"Now, while I don't know enough about the local geography to be be able to say anything definitive..."
If you're going to respond to a point, at least consider the entire point.


I find this interesting because you say here (And I agree with you) that you were breaking the law and speeding. You deemed that necessary, however, by speeding, you put others at risk. You deemed it an acceptable risk.
I'll have to search up the article here, but a man sometime back had his dog hit by a car. He put the dog in the car and rushed him to the vet. Now, I've owned dogs all my life... I understand. Sadly- he was speeding, struck another vehicle, and killed the child inside of it. I do not know if the child was restrained or not.
But the child did die. The man was unaware of this, quickly left contact info and proceeded to the vet. The police went to the vet to make the arrest.
Tragic- very tragic tale and to me, the man did not do anything truly wrong, even though he did do something wrong.
You might want to think about this.
My initial response is to tell you to fuck off.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more this seems like the approriate response.

I was, and am, aware of the potential consequences of my action, and took what reasonable steps I could to mitigate the risk - I don't care enough to go into details.

I also find the comparison shocking. On the one hand, you're talking about a guy who sped and injured a girl in a car getting his dog to a vet. On the other hand, I'm talking about my sons life being at risk.

There is NOTHING, not one single thing, that you have offered me in your annecdote that I didn't think about at the time. Meanwhile, all it has done is serve to irritate me, because not only does it miss the point that I was making there (that there are medical conditions, and associated medications where minutes and seconds can make the difference between life and death. But it also misses the spirit in which the personal annecdote was offered - a mistake I won't be making again.

Fell free to not respond to this portion, and not address the annecdote further.







Now, with heart medication, it is possible that it can help to alleviate or even prevent a heart attack in time. But it seems more likely that someone in cardiac arrest would demand attention and beg someone to run to his car for him. He was not alone- He had two friends with him.

That's your opinion, it's not reality.

No. It's speculation and neither of us know what really happened.
Say what? This doesn't even make any sense...

I stated that it was your opinion that someone in caridac arrest would "Demand attention" and "Send a friend to a car", and your responding to my statement that it is your opinion with "No, it's speculation"?

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense.


Inaccurate.
What I said was very close to what you said.
No, it wasn't very close to what I said.

What I said implicitly acknowledges that they might not have had a role to play in their death. What you attributed to me leaves no room for that uncertainty. My choice of words was very specific, for precisely that reason. I was deliberatly being pedantic with my wording to acknowledge that uncertainty.


You are trying to nitpick to make an invalid point.
So now insisting on accurate communication is nitpicking to make an invalid point?


Bells said, You advocate "inflicting the Death Penalty by rent-a-cops?"
One of those is very far fetched and uncalled for.
It was still you puting words in my mouth.


You're trying way too hard here, trippy.

Smacks more of not remembering you being all specifical about "contributed" or "could have contributed."
So it's unreasonable to expect you to retain context in a conversation? To expect you to double check what I actually said before attirbuting things to me?


Claiming that's dishonest is you trying too hard to make it appear as though I was being as far fetched as Bells was. It won't work.
No it isn't. It's stating a fact. And you have no grounds for weaseling out of the comparison, because the worst I'm doing is applying your standards to you.


Trippy- speculations are not answers. An answer would be providing information as to what really happened. Does that clarify what I'm thinking?
I didn't claim they were definitive answers, I only stated you had been supplied with a plausable answer. Do you understand the difference?

You have asked a question. I have provided you with one possible answer. You have complained that the question is unanswered. I have pointed out that I have previously given you one possible answer. And now you're complaining that the possible answer isn't the definitive answer, it's speculation?

Do you understand how ridiculous that seems?


I have said very similar- that they had probable cause.
Yet, you seem resistant to that. Why?
The perception of resistance is purely infered on your behalf. It's based on your inability to understand what has been presented to you.

If you think that I'm resitant to the idea that they had probable cause, or, if you think for that matter the presence of absence of probable cause is actually relevant to anything I have actually said (IE that their assumptions about his actions may have been wrong) then you haven't understood anything I have had to say and I am wasting my time and bandwidth trying to explain it further to you.

One might ask why you're so resistant to the idea that they may have acted wrongly inspite of seeming to have probable cause.

Indeed. Have you looked up the relationship between probable cause and mens rea yet?

Trippy, these posts are too long and frankly, unproductive at this point.
What I saw in that last post was semantics, heavily. Duh? (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2945060&postcount=53)
It really just goes back and forth- it's useless. Some of your responses don't seem to line up with what I'd said and then you said that something that makes sense doesn't make sense.
A guy runs out of the store with unpaid for goods, was either tackled or fell down in the parking lot. Obviously, this took twenty minutes, right? All the mind readers present were supposed to know what was going on and behave in a manner which you believe they should have. Lastly, I put up a news story relating how people may NOT behave ever so perfectly and I get this little gem:

My initial response is to tell you to fuck off.
Really?

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more this seems like the approriate response.
Yeah- we're done here. Go annoy someone else.

Some of your responses don't seem to line up with what I'd said and then you said that something that makes sense doesn't make sense.
Really? Wasn't I just complaining about that with you? That you keep loosing the thread of the conversation and side tracking?


Obviously, this took twenty minutes, right?
Reductio ad absurdum.
I have not said this and nothing I have stated implies this.


All the mind readers present were supposed to know what was going on and behave in a manner which you believe they should have.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Strawman hypothesis.
I have not said this and nothing I have stated implies this.
The only thing I have stated is that they maybe should have listened to him when he said he was dying, rather than assuming it was a plot.

I've also made the point that there actions as floor staff were, in all likelyhood, well outside company policy.


Lastly, I put up a news story relating how people may NOT behave ever so perfectly and I get this little gem:

My initial response is to tell you to fuck off.

Really?


Indeed, the more I think about it, the more this seems like the approriate response.

Yeah- we're done here. Go annoy someone else.
Liar.

You're presenting what I said out of context. The comment was directed at your response to a personal annecdote. I also explained that I found your response irritating, and why.

Reductio ad absurdum.
I have not said this and nothing I have stated implies this.
Semantics. You kept IMPLYING that I was wrong about the time it takes to run halfway across a parking lot. You did, Trippy. In fact, speaking of claims of what's implied... you went into details, telling about how you handled a home invasion without causing your attacker injury yet you took injury (He entered your garage and assaulted you, you said) and how everyone perceives you as "passive" and then claimed there's NO EVIDENCE for me to perceive you as more pacifist than I am or how you might handle a home invasion. Misleading?



I have not said this and nothing I have stated implies this.
The only thing I have stated is that they maybe should have listened to him when he said he was dying, rather than assuming it was a plot.
They had no real reason to- Plots are far, far more common.


Liar.
Ad Hom attack.


You're presenting what I said out of context. The comment was directed at your response to a personal annecdote. I also explained that I found your response irritating, and why.
You made the comment at all- I did not take it out of context- You made the comment and I directed attention to it. As far as spirit- don't even ASK what kind of "Spirit" I've seen in these long posts.http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/23.gif A hint: Condescending, pretentious, aggressive and I could say much worse. No, I do not trust your motives- not one bit. See above about the whole "pacifist" fracas.
It applied because all that advocacy about being ever so careful- then you admit you put others at risk. I admitted I agreed with your choice. So you can take that comment you made and shove it where the sun don't shine.
As I said, we're done here.

Semantics. You kept IMPLYING that I was wrong about the time it takes to run halfway across a parking lot. You did, Trippy.
No.
It's a reductio ad absurdium leading to a strawman hypothesis.
What I have suggested is that your repeated assertions that there were only seconds involved, and therefore there was no time to accurately assess the situation were in error.

I then went on to support this suggestion by providing evidence that the police response time could reasonably have been on the order of minutes, while acknowledging that I had no knowledge of how close the nearest police officer was.

There's a lot that you're assuming, but isn't actually known.

Were the police called before or after he was first confronted?
Was he first confronted inside the store or outside the store?
If he was confronted while still in the store, as seems to be implied by some of the reports, what was said to him? What did he say to the staff? Was he even coherent when confronted by the staff? What was the alleged shoplifters mental state at the time of the confrontation?

Some of these questions still apply outside the store. Many of your assertions and counter points rely on the assumption that he was coherent and intelligible. What if he wasn't? What if he was muttering over and over again "I've got to get to my car."


In fact, speaking of clai,s of what's implied... you went into details, telling about how you handled a home invasion...
No, I said I was assaulted in my garage. I do not live in my garage.


...without causing your attacker injury...
Correct. I was able to defend myself without injuring him.


...yet you took injury (He entered your garage and assaulted you, you said)...
Correct. Effectively he suckerpunched me, but I defended myself from further injury, without injuring him, and without sustaining further injuries myself.


...and how everyone perceives you as "passive"...
Correct. People who interact with me at a social level perceive me as passive. But then, my social life does not revolve around getting into fisticuffs on a regular basis. Most of my friends have not seen me get angry, and certainly have not seen me loose my cool.


...and then claimed there's NO EVIDENCE for me to perceive you as more pacifist than I am or how you might handle a home invasion.
Correct.

Home invasion is the act of illegally entering a private and occupied dwelling with violent intent for the purpose of committing a crime against the occupants such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping.
My garage is not an occupied dwelling, nor is it attached to an occupied dwelling. The charge which has been laid by the police is common assault. Not burglary, not home invasion, not aggravated assault.

I live on a leg-in property, my garage is at the end of the pan-handle, and open to the roadside (I have no garage door, consequently the only thing of value in my garage is my car).


Misleading?
No.
What we have here is yet another example of you leaping to the wrong conclusion based on incomplete information.


They had no real reason to- Plots are far, far more common.
Irrelevant, and according to you, and the police, they had every reason to. After all, they had him restrained, and when the police arrived seconds later, he was obviously enough in medical distress that the police felt compelled to call for the ambos.


Ad Hom attack.
I question that assertion. An argumentum ad hominem is where I attack you instead of your argument, for example, if I say "You're wrong because you're a moron." In this instance, yes, I am addressing you directly, but in calling you a liar, I am addressing your argument and calling it a lie. And so I'm not sure that pointing out that you are telling a lie constitutes an ad hominem attack.


You made the comment at all- I did not take it out of context
You took it out of context.

The context being that I took a paragraph out of my response to put the statement into context, by both pointing out that I found your commentary on my personal annecdote inflammatory and why. That's more courtosey than you have shown anyone else in this thread.


You made the comment and I directed attention to it. As far as spirit- don't even ASK what kind of "Spirit" I've seen in these long posts.http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/23.gif A hint: Condescending, pretentious, aggressive and I could say much worse. No, I do not trust your motives- not one bit.
Personal attacks now? (Note the difference between a personal attack an ad hominem argument, it's important).


See above about the whole "pacifist" fracas.
The only 'fracas' was in your assumptions beyond what you had been told. It seems to be a recurring theme here.


It applied because all that advocacy about being ever so careful- then you admit you put others at risk.
There's a subtle difference there, that I'm sure you'll ignore or not recognize. Yes, I advocate being careful, and especially being careful about assumptions (which, if you've been following our discussed is the only thing I have actually suggested). Yes, I engaged in risky behaviour. However I thought through my actions and understood the range of their consequences. For example, I braked to the speed limit well in advance of corners, I chose the straightest route possible that had the least amount of traffic, I slowed to the speed limit to engage major intersections (to name a few steps). However, when push comes to shove, the life of my wife and child were in danger, and I will defy the gods themselves to protect my family.

This is one of the reasons why I did not punch my assailant back.


I admitted I agreed with your choice. So you can take that comment you made and shove it where the sun don't shine.
As I said, we're done here.
And you missed my point, in its entirety, once again.

And you missed my point, in its entirety, once again.

I believe... that your point is what I said it was.
You are deliberately being misleading, attempting to make it appear as though I am actually doing what I accused Bells of doing.

Which, if so, is disturbing intellectual dishonesty.