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?
He then goes on to make the
bleeding heart liberal 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 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 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]
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.