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.allowed to take the law into their own hands and inflict the death penalty on people they suspect are shoplifting?
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]
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.
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?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]
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.
This is the question of the day.Why didn't they follow the rules and "disengage" and call the paramedics?
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.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?
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.
Huh? Non Sequitur?A rape is worth $40,000?
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.
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.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.
Again, this really is THE question.They are supposedly trained to "disengage from situations that put themselves or others at risk". So why did they not follow their training?
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.He hasn't been proven to be a thief. He was suspected of shoplifting.
Are we the judge and jury of the guards? Innocent until proven guilty. Remember?Are security guards now judge, jury and executioners now?
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.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.
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 what was it?
The security guards disregarded their own training and put another life at risk, so much so that he died.
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?
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.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.
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.Three security guards against one person.. what a beat down..
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?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?
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.
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.He was restrained by 3 security guards on the ground and in medical distress.
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.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..
Last edited: