Wal-Mart security kills man who stole BB Gun and diapers

The way this fella died sounds very like a high profile case in Sydney a few years ago where the security at star city casino held a guy down and killed him. Basicly they put too much pressure on his chest and he could breath properly, the security were in house and pretty poorly trained. The main reason I know anything about it is it had quite a impact on any training security guards have to do.
There's a specific name for the way of dieing that I'm thinking of but I can't remember what it's called, guess it's a little late in the day for me.

EDIT: Thank only1asterisk, that's the name i was after. Positional asphixiation.

Positional asphyxiation

Is that the term you're looking for?

David

And the lawyer/witness? He's gonna make some money off of this too.

Click to expand...

for those busting on the lawyer, he most likely wouldn't be able to represent the family, as he is a witness.

And, being a lawyer doesn't automatically make him a liar.

I've bought diapers at WalMart.

I've bought BB's and pellets and shopped for airguns at WalMart.

I found all to be too expensive. (But then, I'm cheap.) I like my money. WalMart likes it too, and would rather not have to raise prices to offset the losses by thieves.

Texas law allows force --including deadly force-- to stop the consequences of theft. This guy didn't stop and give up-- he ran util he was stopped, and then resisted. Do you know what that makes it, when he physically resists a store employee during the commission of theft? Strongarm robbery. Will it fly? Depends upon whether he got any kicks or punches in while being apprehended, and what kind of intake attorney is on duty at Harris County DA's office. (Well, this one will never get charged...)

It seems that the guy died of positional asphyxiation and heat exhaustion. No, WalMart LP guys probably aren't trained in how to prevent that. Very possibly they aren't trained even in how to cuff a guy. Their job is to stop people and call the cops, which they did. Because they're not going to be trained much, they're going to be that much more cautious with the guy they had to chase down, and are going to leave him on the ground until the cops arrived. Still and all, I'm fine with them carrying 'cuffs. They next guy they cuff may be the robber who puts a knife in my mother's face next.

It is a good question why the emergency response by cops and ambulance was so slow.

This is a civil case, not a criminal case.

I got nice, gross looking, bleeding, blistering burns on my arm once when I fell off my bike on hot pavement and was out for a couple minutes.

I will respond in kind as long as I am physically able to any Wal-mart employee(s) who try to detain me. They aren't cops.

My guess is you probably don't have anything to worry about if you aren't shoplifting.

Am I a 'door-Nazi' incognito??

I don't get it. There seems to be a general sentiment that 'the poor guy' didn't "deserve" to die; and that his death was a 50/50 proposition when Walmart's blame is assigned.

My point of view is, "deserve" has nothing to do with this guy's dying; whatever his theft was, misdemeanor or felony, he set into motion a cascading set of actions he had no control over, except that he chose to instigate them by his act. All else is synchronicity fated against him.

Whatever the 'law' deems just, as his punishment is not in question here--he had to survive his encounter and make it through the court system in order to get what he "deserved" (according to the severity of his crime); but between the thievery and his (possible) apprehension, there's an "outcome" that must be pondered--"what is my plan?" Obviously, he didn't have one, and the his capture and all else that followed is a nightmare of coincidence and (maybe) emotional retribution (on the LP's part) that couldn't be anticipated, but must be accepted as "unintended consequence" at the moment of thievery.

The fault is all his, the thief's; sure, the Walmart LP's probably crossed a line, but from the scant description, who's to know? If the theft is fact and not "alleged", only one thing is sure; Stacy Driver made his choice.

The store employees could not have known that the witness who was pleading with them to let Driver get up from the hot pavement was a high profile Houston attorney, from the Portz and Portz law firm

Click to expand...

It's about time someone else shared in all that cash, besides the Walton family members - now this guy's family will too, and it sounds like they should.

Exactly how much force are these guys authorized to use? I was under the impression that they had exactly the same amount of legal authority as any other citizen, and that what was described was pretty much assault (and murder).

Click to expand...

Seems like the safest thing to comment on.

In Pa. a merchant or his agent is allowed to immediatly pursue, detain and search a suspected shoplifter. That is a very basic version of the law but, it clearly gives merchants a bit more authority over the average citizen. pursuit can continue off property as long as it is an immediate action. Detention can involve a reasonable use of force or restraint necessary to enforce the detention. Detention can be for a reasonable amount of time to investigate the incident or to await the arrival of the police. An appropriate search for evidence can also be done subsequent to investigation.

Once restrained the detainee is under the care and custody of the merchant. The merchant has an obligation to safeguard the detainee while in custody.

Sounds like security didn't over react, more like they didn't de-escalate the use of force. Stopping and detaining the man was probably appropriate. Use of force was also probably appropriate. Once they had him in custody, force should have been de-escalated and custodial care initiated. They should have moved him into the store if possible, recovered the stolen merchandise and held him for police.

Saw a comment that "it isn't shoplifiting until you leave the store." Not always so. If you pick up merchandise, make a deliberate effort to conceal it and move around the registers and head towards the door, you have shown intent and taken substantial steps towards commiting the crime. You can be charged, although leaving the store does make it more apparent and harder to defend. The problem with allowing a person out of the store is that it emboldens them. A person will act much differiently when detained outside the store than they will inside. I would take the chance of losing a conviction in excange for a safer confrontation and detention. The benefit to the merchant of catching a shoplifter is more in the public detention than the prosecution. Seeing a shoplifter caught is the deterrent value.

What if cutting-off someone's air supply makes them combative? Who wouldn't be combative when they can't breath? It's probably not even vountarily controllable.

Any time you mess with someones A)circulatory B)Respiratory or C) nervous - systems, you are attemtping to kill them. Doesn't matter what you claim you were doing, the liklihood of death is there. Don't care what any law says, it's a fact a human reality fact.

Just a reminder, when you strangle someone to death you are in fact killing them. For those who actually need to be reminded :banghead: And no, you may not face any legal actions, but what ya gonna do.

I also agree, that life is unfair. The guy did in fact set in motion this sequence of events, that he would be tackled. But he did not set in motion the sequence of events that he would die from a gang beating and strangulation. If you want to make that argument you can go join those who blame the pretty girl for getting raped, because she wore provocative clothing.

Just a final reminder, it's fat naked shoplifters like this guy who defend our rights. You heard me, you read that. They are the fringes, they define the boundaries. They are the front line in human rights. Every time they lose, the front-line is re-drawn another step inwards. The constitution wasn't meant to protect 99% of people, it was meant to protect the odd-balls, and then by default everyone would be covered. Every time they win - you hear on the radio how society has lost, how we're soft on fat naked shoplifters. People don't realize that those fat naked shoplifters are fighting for everyone's rights, by default. It's amazing how many people can be convinced to hate freedom.

But that's forgotten today, when it's so much easier to get on a radio show and flip the 'hate' switch in people's brains, discontinue rational thought.

Here's my $.02:

1. Different states give different rights to individuals and companies to defend their property and Texas is famous for giving many rights to property owners.

2. If the LP staff were not trained specifically on how to properly detain a person in the heat and/or on 120+ degree asphalt, then they over-stepped their bounds and should be at the very, absolute least, removed from their positions and not be allowed to serve in a security or LP capacity in the future.

3. Related to #2, I think the family will receive some compensation. As long as they don't find he was on a serious upper, and if it can be proven that they didn't intend to kill him, then it was an accident and they will receive, and should be entitled to, some compensation.

4. Regardless of how much the family of the thief does or does not receive in settlement, the lawyer/witness will receive a big chunk for his ordeal. As long as he can show he hasn't taken a life or witnessed a similar encounter in the past, this has 'forever scarred him' and he'll probably make more than a couple bucks.

5. The BB gun thing... geez dude! I mean, what the hell was he thinking? Diapers alone would get a bit of sympathy, deserved or not, but a BB gun? No one NEEDS a BB gun.

If you are going to carry handcuffs, and physically restrain folks with them, you are responsible for their well being while they are detained. Cant have it both ways, cant get to use handcuffs and not be responsible for the welfare of the person you detained.

It's about time someone else shared in all that cash, besides the Walton family members

Click to expand...

I can't let this statement fly, not only because it's patently untrue that only the Walton family shares in the profits- Walmart is, after all, publically traded on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol WMT) which means that anyone is free to share in the profits of Walmart simply by investing in them.

But assuming you were aware of this, your statement smacks of classism and hatred for those who are wealthy, and plays right into the ethic that redistribution of wealth is a good thing.

Will this guy's family get a large settlement out of Walmart because of his death?

Probably.

Does Walmart deserve to get slapped with a lawsuit over his death?

Probably.

But your support for taking money from Walmart simply because you mistakenly believe that the Waltons are the only ones profiting from their business is nothing more than the ethic of a looter, and an ethic that is anathema to the very basis of freedom.

It's about time someone else shared in all that cash, besides the Walton family members

Click to expand...

You're perfectly free to go out and start your own chain of stores, you know.

Wal Mart is publicly-traded. Anyone can buy shares and share in the profits.

Justin, moredes,

Better than I could have said it.

David

Joejojoba111:

People don't realize that those fat naked shoplifters are fighting for everyone's rights, by default. It's amazing how many people can be convinced to hate freedom.

Click to expand...

Talk about disingenuous!

So by extension the illegal immigrant is fighting for our right not to have to have a license or insurance? The gang member is fighting for my right not to have to have a NICS check when I buy a gun? The rapist is fighting for my right to get laid when I feel like it?
Criminals fighting for my rights? No, they are just fighting to get something that isn't theirs for nothing.
Their fight is the very antithesis of "constitutional"; it is sociopathic.

The Constitution was created to define how the law-abiding should be able to live in a free country, not how the law-breakers should be able to redefine how the rest of us live.

Actions have consequences. To blame anyone else but the fat shoplifter for setting in motion the sequence of events is wrong.
Blame some individuals for perhaps an inappropriate response but don't try to tell me that fat boy has the moral high ground.
That's ridiculous.

G

People that violate the rights of others are not oddballs, nor do they fight for freedom. They are the lowest sort of human refuse.

David

Makes You Wonder

This sort of thing makes you wonder... suppose an otherwise honest CHL holder who has stolen nothing were attacked by three of Walmart's big goons.... has the potential to make for an interesting lethal force case...

It also makes an interesting "what if" for a bystander... because Texas law allows the use of lethal force to protect the life of another... and this might well meet the test involved... though I never suggest use of force for another not family... but still an interesting topic for discussion.

Of course I avoid Walmart like the plague... VERY down market place...

FWIW

Chuck

cxm, exactly.

I've never stolen anything from Walmart or anywhere else.

Imagine yourself in this situation. You are leaving Walmart, and their goons think you have taken something. What would you do if they put their hands on you?

As far as I'm concerned, a $100,000,000,000.00 corporation like Walmart takes a certain risk when they assault someone, just like some $2 theif takes when he steals from someone.

Did the theif suffer the (maybe unforseeable) consequences of his actions? Yes.

Will Walmart suffer the (maybe unforseeable) consequences of its actions? (in the form of paying out millions?) I hope so, in this specific case.

It's about time someone else shared in all that cash, besides the Walton family members - now this guy's family will too, and it sounds like they should.

Click to expand...

Woot, Hell YEAH--Communists ROCK. Let's all steal from the rich, we're all oppressed. That's what you meant, right? Right? Steal from people that have worked hard (or made good business decisions) and have made it good? Or sue the parent company at every opportunity? Is this really what we want America to be?

(And nailing Walmart to the cross because of the actions of some individuals is EXACTLY the same as restricting gun rights due to a couple of criminals that use guns in their crimes--how about we hold the individuals responsible. I think Walmart sucks for a host of reasons, but right is right and wrong is wrong.)

I think a message needs to be sent to Wal Mart that murder cannot be committed in the name of inventory control.

It won't bankrupt them to have to learn this lesson, and we (society) will be better off after they learn it.

I doubt their stock will drop one cent when the jury verdict comes out.

"People that violate the rights of others are not oddballs, nor do they fight for freedom. They are the lowest sort of human refuse.

David"

I don't know who's rights you're talking about, the fat naked shoplifter or the brutal gang-beating loss preventions officers? It's not clear by your statement.



"Criminals fighting for my rights? No, they are just fighting to get something that isn't theirs for nothing.
Their fight is the very antithesis of "constitutional"; it is sociopathic."

...ok... I think I was unclear, my fault. Fat naked shoplifter guy is easy to abuse, because no-one likes him. He's fat, he's naked, he smells funny, and he's a shoplifter. If that means that it's OK to treat him like ????, then the 'boundaries' in the fight for our rights, the front line, shifts inwards. It's trench warfare, long and slow. Every fat naked shoplifter who is state-sanctioned murdered is a battle won for those who don't care about your rights and freedoms.

What if...

Lemme tell you about hot pavement. I've lived in the desert southwest for a lot of years, I've toured on a motorcycle when the temperature was above 120. At night the ground temperature in the hottest part of the summer may not drop below 120 for most of the night. Now I know this didn't occur in the desert southwest but it still gets really hot around Houston in the summertime. I noticed most of the comments regarding ground temperature came from people in northern areas.

Hint to you all: There are no FM roads in Ohio.

Now if it's over one hundred degrees and you do some physical activity and then are held down on hot pavement by people sitting on you, a healthy person may only have 20 minutes of life expectancy. One needs to get into shade somewhere and not the shade of people sitting on you.

Trust me on this, if it's really hot out, it doesn't take a whole lot more to get one into heat stroke. Seems to me that a body temp of 108 often causes death or permanent brain damage.

Now, onto what if? What if the guy just set off one of those stupid alarms that often seem to go off when I'm exiting a store with paid for merchandise in a store bag with a receipt? If several gorillas in civies started to chase me for no apparent reason, I might run some, too.

Seriously, what if the guy wasn't a thief?