Suspected shoplifter dies after being detained at California Walmart

[KilljoyKlown]

Follow up:
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...3/wal-mart-rethinks-its-move-on-deborah-shank

For those curious about what happened to the Shanks.

Good find Neverfly.

 

[Balerion]

Follow up:
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...3/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.

 

[Neverfly]

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.

 

[Balerion]

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.

 

[Neverfly]

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.

 

[R1D2]

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.

 

[quadraphonics]

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.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

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.

 

[Balerion]

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.

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.

 

[Neverfly]

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.

 

[Neverfly]

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.

 

[Balerion]

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.

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.

 

[Neverfly]

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.

 

[R1D2]

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

Please. Ok

 

[seagypsy]

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.

 

[Neverfly]

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]

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]
​

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]
​

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..

 

[Balerion]

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.

 

[seagypsy]

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.

 

[Neverfly]

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.