General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWalmart security guard shoots 'shoplifting' mother dead in parking lot as she tries to escape with t
He fired when Frey and her two alleged accomplices accelerated when he opened the car door
There were two small children in the car at the time of the shooting
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245074/Walmart-security-guard-shoots-shoplifting-mother-dead-parking-lot-tries-escape-young-children.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mike_c
(36,281 posts)What is Walmart doing with ARMED guards, for fuck's sake? Summary execution for stealing low value property? I thought that sort of thing went out of fashion after the dark age.
DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)your security just might run into some hard cases.
That said, fuck Wal-Mart.
obamanut2012
(26,164 posts)They have the same laws for Sudafed as anyplace else.
gradient
(6 posts)If someone in the store goes nuts and is harming customers or employees, they should issue a sternly worded scolding? Or, I know, wait until the cops show up, right?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)Why shouldn't they act responsibly. You don't shoot someone SUSPECTED of a petty crime while they are driving away from you in the parking lot. No one was
going nuts harming customers or employees in the store. Hence the argument they are not responsibly hiring people qualified to be armed. Besides, shouldn't it be up to the other customers to arm themselves for protection from a crazy person in the store.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Especially in a moving car with children in it.
But I'm sure you think valueless trinkets and cheap stuff is worth killing people over.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)
REP
(21,691 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)Nonetheless, he was working as a security guard at Walmart, not collaring murderers and father-rapers. Why did Walmart have an armed guard on duty? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)No Walmart guard is supposed to be armed, ever. And they're supposed to stop pursuing beyond a certain point.
And what the hell is a sheriff doing shooting a fleeing suspect, anyway? You can't just shoot people who aren't posing a threat to others' safety!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's in the constitution somewhere, I'm sure of it.
And you'll certainly find no shortage of DU'ers defending the concept.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)was an off duty cop. He was not allowed to carry a gun while working at that store by the store rules and was required to call the on duty cops if an arrest was needed. All he could do was a citizens arrest, while on duty at the store and off duty as a cop. This is crazy considering shoplifters usually aren't violent.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)I've known store security guard and store detectives. They are not people who should be armed. And I've never seen one who was, for that matter.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he was a moon lighting deputy sheriff.
I agree that Walmart has no need for armed guards.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Details. Details.
Hard to say what one would do in that situation. Sad and tragic for sure.
edit: to clarify who I meant by "she"
sakabatou
(42,186 posts)and not just glance over at the headline.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Andrews began to drive away while the deputy was standing between the open door and the driver's seat.
'She threw it in reverse and tried to run over the deputy,' said Harris County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Deputy Thomas Gilliland.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245074/Walmart-security-guard-shoots-shoplifting-mother-dead-parking-lot-tries-escape-young-children.html#ixzz2EmjHCcv1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)...to cover up for the sheriff, would they?
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)try to run over security trying to stop her
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)Unbelievable!
Whovian
(2,866 posts)or even knocked him down if he was not fast enough to get out of the way of the door. He decided to kill.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Whether he intended to kill her or not, we'll probably never know for certain.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)which you seem to accept as fact.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Im just going by the statements in article. Isnt that all we have to go by at this point? 
adding: hence my above post "Apparently she (the driver) was trying to run him over"
Whovian
(2,866 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)If you feel that you can... have at it. I cant even begin to know what I would have done at that point and I certainly wont pretend to know the intentions of a total stranger.
Whovian
(2,866 posts)person.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)What I DO know however, is that a person, if they feel their life is in danger, is capable of wildly firing a gun. He may have been off balance, he may have been a bad shot, theres a ton of variables in this equation.
Also, I sincerely doubt that cops are trained that every shot fired is a shot to kill. As I understand it, lethal force should only be used when all other options are exhausted.
Whovian
(2,866 posts)should be given every resource by the law to relieve them of any responsibility. There are many like you with the same affliction and there is help available. The first step is to keep an open mind.
You clearly know nothing about me.
talk about keeping an open mind. 
Whovian
(2,866 posts)previous posts stating your opinions.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)most likely, and correctly as it turns out in her case, felt her life might be in danger and tried to get out of there as fast as possible. She may have been a bad driver, or so scared she didn't know what she was doing, worried that some lunatic with a gun was so close to the car in which she had children.
She is dead, he is not. Why was he running around a Walmart Parking lot with a loaded gun where there are children and other shoppers he could have hit also.
She stole some merchandise. The sensible thing to do would have been to take down her license plate number, and let it be handled the way it should have been handled.
No one should get the death sentence for stealing. He drew a gun and I know if I did that and aimed at someone I would know that there was a huge chance I might kill them. Which is why I don't walk around with deadly weapons.
I have a feeling Walmart will be pleased with what they will view as the 'deterrent' effect of this tragedy. Money is everything to Walmart.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Violence the solution of all of America's problem. And with so much of it, you would think we would have solved all of our problems by now.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)He was a cop. In uniform. Doing his job. 
2naSalit
(86,868 posts)Take down plate # and deal with it in a more civil fashion
If shooting was the only option, and I think not, shoot tires of vehicle, then approach vehicle
Call in the plate #
Call in the plate #
Call in the plate #
Point, there were children present, he was off duty (according to the article), and the items taken couldn't have amounted to very much no matter how many reachable items the three alleged women may have crammed into their purses. Nothing of value is easily accessible in a Walmart. You have to pay for it before the clerk lets you hold it in your hand after they fetch it from a locked cabinet. This guy just decided she needed to be dead since she wasn't accepting his authority, he shot her in the neck.
...oh yeah, and she was not white.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)That was the first thing I thought of. Was she white or not?
2naSalit
(86,868 posts)backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)to paraphrase you
This woman just decided he needed to be dead since he wasn't accepting her authority
2naSalit
(86,868 posts)he shot her in the neck, so if she wasn't driving then how could she be trying to run him over? Read the article. It's a clear case of he said vs she's dead... oh and did I mention that she wasn't white? Bet she wouldn't be dead if she was white.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)I'm starting to think I'm on the wrong site..this place is getting crazy
2naSalit
(86,868 posts)that is your prerogative... I shit you not. And I'm sticking to it.
Chemisse
(30,817 posts)Cops can be lunatics too. And he was clearly running around the parking lot with a loaded gun.
It's really hard to defend his actions. The only way it could be excused is if she was backing up while he was in the door, and killing her saved his life.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)many people, especially minorities and the poor. Better if he was not in uniform, she might have less fearful.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)through the parking lot with his gun already drawn?
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Granted she may have knocked him down when she backed up but once she started driving away he was no longer in any danger. He was just pissed and took it out with his gun even though he knew children were in the vehicle.. I hope he goes to jail...
obamanut2012
(26,164 posts)Cops and civilians are taught this. It is a felony for civilians to brandish and/or fire a "warning shot." It is also very unsafe. Cops are taught the same thing.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)To not attempt a "crippling," "winging," or "Hollywood shot." The recommendation is to shoot for the body mass (the trunk), preferably twice (double tap) to assure at least one round hits. The objective is to "stop" the individual (though killing with a handgun can happen 20% of the time). This is why self-defense and "duty" weapons are evaluated on their "stopping power" and not on their "killing power," a term of art used in the popular media.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I had a Sunday School teacher decades ago who was a narcotics detective. Always had a .357 under his sport coat, even in church. He told us many times, and this is a near quote, you don't pull your gun unless you intend to shoot, and you don't shoot unless you intend to kill--"winging them" only happens in the movies; you aim for the biggest part of the body.
Yeah, I think the off-duty deputy intended to kill.
Bake
obamanut2012
(26,164 posts)NO ONE is trained to shoot to wound. You only fire your weapon if you are in immediate threat of grievous bodily injury or death.
A shoplifter isn't an armed robber or home invader.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Let's see.... a loaf of bread? a piece of clothing?... an officers control? .... equals... a life?
I think not. The weapon stays put unless there is immediate threat of grievous bodily injury or death, not just because you don't get your way. She would have been caught and dealt with if he was intelligent enough to make realistic and prudent decisions. It seems he was not.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)You never ever pull a gun unless you're prepared to kill someone with it.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)You pull the gun, you shoot to to kill.
There is nothing else. No winging, no wounding, no nothing,
Only kill.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)There would be a DU subject titled "man sentenced to death for peeing in park"
bunnies
(15,859 posts)it wouldnt surprise me at all. 
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Sadly, this is true. And someone would have to call the cops "pigs" and the person who turned him in a "narc".
mike_c
(36,281 posts)She was not driving, if I recall correctly-- someone else was-- and the driver's actions were also consistent with simply trying to escape. In any event, the off duty cop only needed to release her door and step out of the way to avoid being "run over."
bunnies
(15,859 posts)These are things we couldnt possibly know based on the article.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So, he shot a passenger, failed to stop the car and - still - lived to tell his tale with apparently no injuries worth a mention in the article: it makes me wonder how much danger the car presented.
Beyond this, and more importantly, if a driver were threatening a police officer with a vehicle, is it generally considered acceptable to shoot a passenger and claim self-defense?
Mel Content
(123 posts)that should be able to show just how much danger pistol pete was really in.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)eom
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)And if he was "aiming at the driver". He clearly missed his target. Perhaps because he was off balance from being pushed by the door.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)As far as him missing, yup. Just as good a reason as any not to shoot. Clearly not directed fire, and if it was, he should be ashamed.
Oh - wait.
obamanut2012
(26,164 posts)And, cops also know you don't open the car door for a shoplifter.
billh58
(6,635 posts)was Edwards, and the victim was Shelly Frey (not the driver). But, hell that's okay because she was in the car and in his sights, and she (Frey) was a fleeing criminal so a summary execution was definitely in order. No muss, no fuss, no trial necessary -- because justice was served.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She wasn't the driver.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)Cars cannot be deadly weapons. No one ever dies because of cars....
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I have to say, guilty or not guilty, I would try to drive away too if an overzealous security guard tried to practically get in my car too. That is downright creepy that he would try to go in her car after her like that in the first place.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I'd always heard it was illegal to use deadly force solely in defense of property. Hopefully the guard and Wal-Mart doesn't get away with this.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)and the use of force has to occur at night.
Think cattle rustling.
gradient
(6 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)...and could easily have avoided it-- if he hadn't been such a cowboy pig.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So how come we haven't solved all these problems?
What would have happened if the cop had just taken down the license plate # and simply summoned her to court, as happens in most civilized countries?
He endangered everyone in that parking lot plus the children in the car, and for what? A couple of dollars worth of slave labor made merchandise.
Amercia, where cheap Chinese made products are more valuable than human life.
.
I wonder how people in countries like Norway eg, manage to 'catch a thief' without killing them? They do manage, it's amazing.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He shot a passenger.
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Over there, they cut off your hand if you're caught stealing. Here, apparently the penalty is death.
USA! USA! USA! 
JI7
(89,281 posts)i don't know how many witnesses or if there is any video of this. but there is a chance where they drove away and he shot at the car to try to stop them.
but he is saying they were trying to run him over .
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)JI7
(89,281 posts)wouldn't he have been able to shoot the driver ?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The cops ALWAYS say the driver was trying to run them over and they feared for their lives.
But I have to wonder how many of those drivers are actually would-be cop-killers, and how many are just trying to get away.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)The officer doesn't have a duty to get out of the way .
Most people in a panic think the person standing in front of the car will jump out of the way.
Some cops will chose to jump and let the person flee "some won't"
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)When the odds of getting away with such are nil. I don't know what will come of this case, and I am not sure if the security guard is "in the clear" on this. But it seems we have someone who hits the gas (with two children in the car) when she is being detained by an armed guard. Is this a learned behavior? Is it a socially-acceptable among those committing these crimes? Is their some miss-placed entitlement to at least one potentially violent way of escaping "the moment?" Is their expectation of "enablement" within the system? Is their a back-burner desire to get shot?
You give 2 possibilities. Fair enough. But what compels or drives someone to do this "all the time?"
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He shot a passenger.
If you are shooting because your life is threatened, why shoot a passenger?
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Earlier in the year she pleaded guilty to stealing shirts and a package of meat from another Walmart and as part of her plea arrangement she agreed to never enter Walmart stores again.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that people stealing are responsible enough to selt belt the children?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Generally thieves aren't known for their correct sense of decency.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(be they off-duty cops, or not) don't just attempt to stop the alleged perpetrator to the point that thy can't detain them ... then stop!
No one would be dead if the security guard had not attempted to open the door; but rather had recorded the license plate number.
Maybe store ought to institute a policy that once the alleged bad guy reaches the parking lot (leaves the store) the only action their guards are to take is record the license plate and call the police.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)He's going to apprehend the criminals, according to the laws he's sworn to uphold as a Harris County Sheriff's Deputy.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)It is a term used inside the dept when your shift ends.
Some people think it means they stop being sworn LEO's when they clock out.
gradient
(6 posts)He was alerted by store security that the perps had been observed stuffing stuff into purses. He had every right to stop and question them, even search them.
billh58
(6,635 posts)one of it's cheerleaders. Yeah, it's just fine to kill a shoplifter when she isn't the one driving the car, and fuck the two kids if they were in the way. You people are fine examples of all that's wrong with the right wing in this country.
joc46224
(62 posts)The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people. (I'd say shooting a firearm in a store parking lot could easily endanger innocent bystanders, let alone the two kids in the car).
In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)It's excessive.
Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #31)
Post removed
adigal
(7,581 posts)Someone might steal some made in China shit?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Wal-Mart has them follow police department policy as to whether or not they can be armed.
billh58
(6,635 posts)2nd Amendment justice system in the USA allows for summary executions if you can convince someone (anyone) after-the-fact that you were acting in self-defense. Since the alleged assailant is usually dead, it becomes the duty of the legal system to prove the shooter was NOT acting in self-defense.
What used to be outright murder is now SYG or self-defense, and all too easy to get away with.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Democratopia
(552 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)especially when there are children near by! 
gradient
(6 posts)Assuming the sarcasm was misplaced.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and troll misses!
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)to pay money into a company that exploits its workers or supports the suppression and death of workers in depressed areas.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I don't shop at Walmart. I am forced to go to used clothing stores; I REALLY go cheap.
No one really likes their employment practices, another reason I don't go there. But some folks can only afford a one-stop place with cheap products/food, and they may not be up on the politics of the place. Walmart didn't fabricate their model from thin air. My prediction years ago is Walmart will face competition of Family Dollar, Dollar General, and the like because they are even cheaper and more in line with declining wages and living standards. Seems to be coming true.
Most some of us can do is just add another biz to the boycott list.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)And for what its worth-I happen to know very well the struggles of the US poor and of those usually single with children women who work in the fluorescent sweat shops of Walmart. Not liking W's employment practices is a whole lot different than wearing a garment or eating a potato that some poor slob created in an area of the world that makes US poverty look like a cakewalk.
Walmart is hazardous to humans.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)practical action to strike back at Walmart; otherwise we find ourselves in a private world of consumer righteousness while condemning millions who are teetering along. Personally, I don't see the average DUer according much dignity or respect to Those people, too much cultural animosity in this post-labor solidarity world.
So, personal boycotts it is.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...Walmart undercuts the pricing of just about every local store. That pretty much forces people to shop there if they're on a strict budget, no matter how they might feel about the store personally. Principle sometimes gets outweighed by necessity. I'm not sure why that seems so hard to understand.
Look around...it's not just Walmart workers being exploited these days.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)I am aware of what Walmart does in its pricing. My spouse works in the soft drink end. Walmart is cutthroat in their pricing and in their dealings with their workers, with their retailers, with everyone.
No matter what you or others have to say, however, you do make the choice to support them and their employment/purchasing patterns by shopping in the Walmart stores.
That means that you support exploiting workers.
That means that you support the Walmart model of employing people part time and encouraging them to support themselves with US benefits
That means that you support their failure to protect the lives of the poor in countries who often earn as little as 30-40 dollars a month.
That means that your budget comes before all of those things. If you're happy with that choice-ok. But it is your choice. No one holds a gun to your head.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)They put all the local folk/economy out of business for the Rollback Prices.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)Yes I like to save money and yes I need to watch a budget. But I make the choice to save money in other ways.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Walmart is a "go to first" store.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)After all, lots of people don't have a car and the Walmart is always well-served by buses.
No?
Oh. Well are you offering to pay the difference in price for the people who are shopping there because they can't afford to shop elsewhere?
No?
Oh. Well, are you opening stores that are alternatives to us poor people who don't have other shopping options within a reasonable distance?
No?
Oh. You're just being mean to people you don't know because you haven't bothered to find out anything about them.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)than your life.
Baby clothes. We had to buy some. Guess how many non-Wal-Mart retailers are within an hour that carries them? 1 department store. They charge 10 to 20 times what Wal-Mart charges. I suppose they're probably nicer, but we're talking about clothes that will be worn for 2-4 months.
I would love to go with, say, Babies R Us instead. But Wal-Mart drove the local store out of business. Garage sales? Don't happen here in the winter, since we normally have lots of snow.
So you are arguing I should pay 10-20x the price, pay as much in shipping as the clothes for something online, or pay plenty in gas to get to my next shopping option in order to satisfy your righteous indignation.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Personally I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I have other options. But some people don't, whether or not you "believe the arguments".
I got new for you, if you live in the US and you do not live "off the grid" which you obviously don't, then you have no fucking room to talk about sweatshops and third world poverty conditions. Somewhere down the line you are as guilty as everyone else of exploitation. You were born into it. Get off the high horse and deal with it.
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)From the article : 'She threw it in reverse and tried to run over the deputy,' It's not exactly a happy situation, but when you try to kill a cop, they will generally shoot back. Who would have thought?
billh58
(6,635 posts)the expected Gungeon defense of this incident, is that the deceased was not the fucking driver. Yeah, that's the RKBA mantra: summarily execute anyone (everyone) involved and let the 2nd Amendment sort them out. It's the fucking American way.
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)I believe the aggressor is always at fault. In this case, the driver who nearly ran over the guard was the aggressor. It's sad that the passenger was hit, but getting into a car whose driver is trying to kill someone is a dumb risk.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)The guard was a pig.
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)In the end though, it's the conduct of people like this guy that causes many stores to have no contact loss prevention policies. Better to let a couple hundred bucks of junk go than to deal with a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Shooting a passenger isn't going to stop the vehicle. Which you can tell because the vehicle didn't fucking stop.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)We do know that there are now two children without a mother. Whether that is the fault of the driver or the cop, that fact doesn't change.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm kinda leaning towards blaming the cop. For thinking that shooting a passenger would stop the car.
obamanut2012
(26,164 posts)Guards aren't armed. A cop should know the law and know better, and Wal-Mart should, too.
He should get life. This was murder.
We learned in CCW class it is a felony to even brandish your gun to protect property. YOU WILL GO TO PRISON IF YOU DO SO. Just for pulling a gun on someone stealing your car.
Property theft is not a capital offense.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #72)
Post removed
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Have a nice visit...
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...I just wanna thumb my nose.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)From the article, Wal-Mart lets guards who happen to also be cops follow the police department's policy as to whether or not they can be armed.
dballance
(5,756 posts)shoplifter has been killed in a Walmart parking lot by Walmart employees?
I'm really not aware of any merchandise at Walmart that is worth more than the life of a person even if they were shoplifting. So why the heck is a guard at Walmart armed? Someone is going to roll that 50-inch TV out the door with no one noticing?
The security guard upon realizing he was not going to be able to stop the alleged criminals should have gotten out of the way of a vehicle that could harm him and called for backup from law enforcement. He is a sheriff in the county and should have been sufficiently trained to know when he was entering a situation that was dangerous to him without backup. These situations often end like this one with someone dead or injured when there was no reason for it.
And don't give me the BS that the situation unfolded too quickly for him to get out of the way. He should never have approached the car and opened the door in the first place. It was unsafe and as a sheriff's deputy he should have known that. If they were hard core criminals they might have had a weapon in the car and he would have exposed himself to getting shot the moment he opened the door of the car.
He should have taken down the license plate number and called his buddies at the sheriff's office to stop the car and arrest the occupants if they had shoplifted. From reading the article he was obviously not in control of the situation. Had he done the proper thing and called in the car to the sheriff's office they could have pulled over the car and been in control of the situation. That might have negated the need to shoot someone.
billh58
(6,635 posts)a right -- a 2nd Amendment right -- to stand Walmart's ground I tell ya. And summary executions save the taxpayers so much money don't you know.
And if it's necessary...
dballance
(5,756 posts)We don't have to incarcerate him or go through very expensive prolonged trials that would doubtfully ever shed a light onto why this horrible tragedy happened. They would likely only find him guilty and sentence him to life in prison. Little real comfort or compensation to the people who lost loved ones.
billh58
(6,635 posts)to the Mall shooting in Portland. This is a different incident.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)I guess this is the vision for 21st America. Probably getting people acclimated to the new economic reality in store for the bottom 30% of the population. Sends a clear message to one of Walmart's key customer demographics...pay the highest cost for the attempted lowest price.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)The family of this poor woman should sue for billions and own this chain.
billh58
(6,635 posts)to offend the DU right-wing Republicans who frequent the Gungeon and who are flocking to this thread to defend the poor, poor security guard who was only standing Walmart's ground for them. He was so rattled that he killed the wrong person, but that's okay because he's protected by the Right to kill fellow Americans as stated right there in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Guilty as determined by Walmart, no stinking trial necessary, and summary executions are the tax-free Republican way. All hail the 2nd amendment, and the Right to Kill and Bury Anyone (RKBA).
txwhitedove
(3,933 posts)lot is always crowded. Horrible, dangerous situation for all parties. IF it was shoplifting, they had kids in the car. IF they were trying to drive over/away from deputy by accelerating in reverse with the door open - they had KIDS in the car. And, no matter what the deputy was aiming at, there were KIDS IN THE CAR! Just nuts.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)On Google it is rated a 3 out of 30. The comments would not make one wish to shop there.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,228 posts)"Earlier in the year she pleaded guilty to stealing shirts and a package of meat from another Walmart and as part of her plea arrangement she agreed to never enter Walmart stores again."
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Does the cop's last name happen to be Zimmerman? You'd think so, the way so many are lining up to shake his hand
flamingdem
(39,333 posts)and that they should be put away for a looong time as an example to other rent-a-cops.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Cheap shit is so worth killing over.... Ugh!
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)There is a culture of paranoia over shoplifting at Wal Mart. It is more than just a regular concern about shoplifting that most stores would have. It is an outright paranoia. No other store has police parked in front of the store 24/7/365 like Wal Mart here does. They will inspect your grocery cart to make sure nothing is hidden in the bottom. They will make you take every last thing out of the cart even if the last thing in there is large and heavy. They will stop you and inspect the cart on the way out the door and demand to see your receipt.
While you are in the store, they have people that are hired to look like other shoppers, but paid to spy on real shoppers. They will follow you around and watch your every move. They are supposed to look like other shoppers, but they are obvious in how they are watching your every move. I remember thinking that part was particularly creepy. Since working there ages ago, I have noticed the spy shoppers a lot more often. They are easy to spot. They have no cart and no items with them, but they walk through the store a really long time and will get right where you are acting like they are looking for something. Meanwhile, while they distract you trying to get you to "help" them look for some item, they will inspect your cart and look even in your private bag or purse. It is very noticeable if you know about that little trick they use.
The amount of paranoia about shoplifting at Wal Mart is overblown, obsessive, creepy, way more than the usual concern you might see at a store. I'm not the least bit surprised by this. I am sad for the family, but not surprised by a Wal Mart security guard's actions.
PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)Walmart will prosecute for theft of an item under $1. The cost to the taxpayers runs into the hundreds and even thousands for each case. There is talk of changes in the way these cases are handled to force some of the costs back onto Walmart.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Seems like a faulty law. You are going to charge people to enforce laws? There is so much wrong with that.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)See if the police will prosecute the person who stole it for you, spending multitudes of taxpayers' money. It won't happen. They will tell you to watch your money closer yourself, because that is such a small amount to go through all that for. Why should Wal Mart be that paranoid and greedy and get that much special attention the rest of us would never get, or have the audacity to ask for?
PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)at magistrate's hearings over thefts of under $10 worth of merchandise. That is time that they are not out patrolling the streets and answering calls which may be of a more threatening nature. In a time of limited government resources, it is understandable that local governments feel Walmart should represent themselves in court and not use precious police resources.
Horse with no Name
(33,958 posts)Because the only thing that I see is an armed idiot working in the capacity of an UNARMED security guard who happens to also work as a Deputy shooting an unarmed person in a car with two children for a PETTY crime HE suspected her of.
Now, I have NO doubt that she was found dead with merchandise on her--but have no idea if it was planted on her after she was murdered or if she actually took it out of the store.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)For chrissake.
Response to ashling (Original post)
DRS This message was self-deleted by its author.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Should be fired and charged with "reckless endangerment" at the very least for shooting into a car with kids in it. Cops are trained very well in positioning and approching a running vehicle that is still being controlled by the suspect. He should have never put himself in a position to get run over or even hit by the car. If the car takes off while he is approching it you take the plate number and report it the on duty police. You don't draw your weapon on someone you only "suspect" of a petty theft.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)the recent mall shooting.
Robb
(39,665 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)And it's subsequent posts...
I did laugh at your post though