|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Killing thieves
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... Well, as far as the law is concerned at least this is manifestly not true. It's perfectly possible for someone to die and for the law to say that no-one has to pay for it.
I agree completely. While it's important that the law recognises the value of life and imposes sufficient consequences to act as a deterrent to harming another person, it needs to avoid going too far the other way so that a life has a price and it's a transaction instead of a deterrent.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: And the main reason for imposing liability on someone for careless or accidental actions is that avoiding the outcome is SO important, you want to put a positive duty on people to avoid the outcome.
It isn't done very often. Even with killing a person, the bar is set pretty high. You have to have dropped well below the standard of care that's expected of you.
Do you think (in an Australian context) that the duty of a security guard to employ their knowledge of how to restrain somebody without killing them fits in this scheme of things? They are (theoretically, performance of regulators is a completely separate issue) trained in how not to kill people while restraining them purely because it has happened and could happen again - see this Four Corners story.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I do value some property, much to my discredit. I value that with which I create, such as my cameras and my computer. I value that which has sentiment attached, such as that which has been given to me by family and friends.
However I do not think this is a truly good thing.
The most that should have been done in this particular case is observation and alerting the police. The employees are out nothing, the store will barely notice an effect on its bottom line.
I do not see how this case should necessitate a "hindsight" comment.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
BTW, security guard training seems to vary considerably in different American states and few seem to be as rigorous as Australia.
Store employees might receive a short briefing in either country.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do value some property, much to my discredit. I value that with which I create, such as my cameras and my computer. I value that which has sentiment attached, such as that which has been given to me by family and friends.
However I do not think this is a truly good thing.
The most that should have been done in this particular case is observation and alerting the police. The employees are out nothing, the store will barely notice an effect on its bottom line.
I do not see how this case should necessitate a "hindsight" comment.
And what happens if the police kill someone?
Which is indeed a major topic of discussion here at the moment.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Police are an unfortunate necessity. In the case you highlight, it would appear they exceeded their mandate. Police are human, and they will make mistakes. Those mistakes are often understandable, but this does not mean they are acceptable.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Do you think (in an Australian context) that the duty of a security guard to employ their knowledge of how to restrain somebody without killing them fits in this scheme of things? They are (theoretically, performance of regulators is a completely separate issue) trained in how not to kill people while restraining them purely because it has happened and could happen again - see this Four Corners story.
Yes, I definitely think that fits into the scheme of things. I'd have to say that my knowledge of negligence and duty of care is a bit rusty these days, but as far as I can remember the standard expected of someone does depend on their training / experience / profession.
I vaguely remembered a High Court case about the standard of driving expected of a learner driver. What I'd forgotten is that the case I learned back in law school was overridden in some respects more recently. But the later case has a nice paragraph that's relevant here:
quote:
69. The common law recognises many circumstances in which the standard of care expected of a person takes account of some matter that warrants identifying a class of persons or activities as required to exercise a standard of care different from, or more particular than, that of some wholly general and "objective community ideal". Chief among those circumstances is the profession of particular skill. A higher standard of care is applied in those cases. That standard may be described by reference to those who pursue a certain kind of occupation, like that of medical practitioner, or it may be stated, as a higher level of skill, by reference to a more specific class of occupation such as that of the specialist medical practitioner. At the other end of the spectrum, the standard of care expected of children is attenuated.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Police are an unfortunate necessity. In the case you highlight, it would appear they exceeded their mandate. Police are human, and they will make mistakes. Those mistakes are often understandable, but this does not mean they are acceptable.
But isn't that the same point? Shop employees and contracted security guards are human. They will make mistakes.
But that doesn't mean they should be put in a position where acting AT ALL is seen as wrong. That's the basic problem I see. You don't seem to be advocating that action has to be taken with due care and skill, but that action shouldn't be taken. Full stop.
Beeswax Altar might have been exaggerating for effect, but his basic point is sound. If everyone is obliged or expected to stand around and do nothing besides observe and make a police phone call, then thieves can proceed with a great deal more confidence because the risks of their activity have been greatly reduced. And I'm not talking about the risk of physical harm to themselves, I'm talking about the risk of being apprehended or prevented from stealing.
[ 27. November 2012, 06:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the problem is you're equating not being willing to kill with not wanting to defend property at all. If it comes to killing, then I prefer to lose my stuff.
But shouldn't that self-denial be at your choice rather than his or the state's?
No, for the following reason.
Killing people is usually illegal, yes? However, we do have the concept of justifiable homicide. Generally, we allow one person to kill another without being guilty of an offence where that killing prevents a greater wrong - for example taking someone out who's pointing a gun at someone, or where the death results from action that was proportionate to the threat presented, for example an intended rape victim fighting back against an ongoing attack and killing him in the process.
Does killing someone to prevent them nicking your telly fit into that concept of justifiable homicide? I think that the law does have to draw a line at some point; we may differ on where that line should be drawn. A tussle that escalates in the process of a theft is one thing; shooting someone in the back as they run away to get your telly back is quite another.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I definitely think that fits into the scheme of things. I'd have to say that my knowledge of negligence and duty of care is a bit rusty these days, but as far as I can remember the standard expected of someone does depend on their training / experience / profession.
Thanks - while it may not be your particular area of the legal world, at least you're a fair bit more than a complete layperson like me.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that doesn't mean they should be put in a position where acting AT ALL is seen as wrong. That's the basic problem I see. You don't seem to be advocating that action has to be taken with due care and skill, but that action shouldn't be taken. Full stop.
This is beyond what I've actually said, but I am likely not being clear. The employees should not act beyond notification as they will not have the training. They will likely never have "due care and skill." They risk harm to themselves as well. How much the security guard should have done depends upon the level of training.
ISTM what cautions thieves and potential thieves is the prospect of being physically caught by security and the police and being observed by clerks and shoppers, leading to the apprehension and arrest.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
several billion Muslims
Pedantic (captious?) tangent alert.
The Shorter Oxford defines "several" as "more than two but not many".
While estimates vary, there are almost certainly fewer than two billion Muslims in the world.
As you were.
Carry on.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well, Obama just got re-elected so America will be forced to convert to Islam. But the total will still be under two billion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
One of the three involved was a contracted security guard and not a Walmart employee. They should have attempted to detain the alleged thief until the police arrived as that is their job - their licensing gives them limited license to restrain people because they are trained in how to restrain a person without causing injury or death due to an impact or to positional asphyxia. The two (now suspended) Walmart employees would not have anywhere near the same level of training in security operations, and they should not have gotten involved in any confrontation beyond verbal argument.
Private security guards are trained to ensure that they do not cause injury or death to a person they are restraining, regardless of what that person is alleged to have done. I noticed in the article that the contract with that security guard has been cancelled, but it's disturbing to note that it didn't say Walmart had suspended the contract with the agency employing that security guard until their training practices had been audited by the police investigation, hopefully he/she was an independent contractor or the contract has been suspended and it was just a clumsy statement which omitted that bit. It also might not be the fault of the guard or the agency, if security training is not properly regulated by the state or local government involved.
A relevant update from a different news source:
quote:
According to the police report in Sundays incident, store manager Michael Burton asked to see the man's receipt for two LG Blu-ray DVD players, which he had put in his bag. The report said the man ran outside and Burton followed, grabbing the man by the hood of his sweatshirt and slammed him to the ground.
Burton says the man got back up and hit him in the face and chest. A security officer contracted with Walmart and another employee joined in, allegedly telling police they put the man in a headlock and held him by his back and feet, in an effort to calm him down.
The police report says security officer Jaiviere Pruitt eventually put the suspect in a choke hold and told him to tap when he couldn't breathe.
Major Gardner, a security training consultant with Georgia Security Agency says his company trains more than 1,500 security guards a year and that choke holds are not part of their program.
"I don't think there's any licensed instructor in the state that would teach someone choke holds," said Gardner.
Unarmed security guards are required to have 24 hours of training to get their certification and eight hours of training each year after that to keep their certification. Walmart won't say what its employees receive. But did say in a statement to 11Alive, "No amount of merchandise is worth someone's life. Associates are trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at risk."
Sounds like someone either received deficient training or ignored whatever training they did receive. I'm not sure there's a legal construction under which "slowly throttling an immobilzed (alleged) thief" can be considered self-defense.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that doesn't mean they should be put in a position where acting AT ALL is seen as wrong. That's the basic problem I see. You don't seem to be advocating that action has to be taken with due care and skill, but that action shouldn't be taken. Full stop.
This is beyond what I've actually said, but I am likely not being clear. The employees should not act beyond notification as they will not have the training. They will likely never have "due care and skill." They risk harm to themselves as well. How much the security guard should have done depends upon the level of training.
ISTM what cautions thieves and potential thieves is the prospect of being physically caught by security and the police and being observed by clerks and shoppers, leading to the apprehension and arrest.
While "leave it to the experts" might be generally sound advice, there's a serious air of unreality in turning it into a rule.
Because for starters, the rule would have to be "leave it to the experts so long as there's an expert available to act as required".
If you have an urgent medical emergency happening in front of you, are you going to be required to restrict yourself to calling a doctor? The Heimlich manoeuvre, for example? If there's a fire, will people be forbidden to do anything about it other than call the fire bridgade?
While there's nothing wrong with advising against DIY, I see serious problems with making any kind of rule about it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
Do you really see "applying a chokehold to prevent the theft of 2 DVD players" to bear a meaningful similarity to "applying the Heimlich maneuver to prevent a death"?
If so, you're not the only one who's detecting a serious air of unreality on this thread...
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Do you really see "applying a chokehold to prevent the theft of 2 DVD players" to bear a meaningful similarity to "applying the Heimlich maneuver to prevent a death"?
If so, you're not the only one who's detecting a serious air of unreality on this thread...
Firstly, I didn't say anything about applying a chokehold. I'm not talking about the facts of the particular case and whether someone acted incorrectly, I'm talking about whether someone is allowed to attempt to act at all.
And secondly, what happens if I crack someone's ribs while trying to do the Heimlich, and doing it very badly?
I would totally agree that actions need to be PROPORTIONATE. The relative value of a person who is choking, compared to 2 DVD players, means that different kinds of actions would be permitted. But that wasn't the question, at least not the one we started with. The question was whether people are allowed to do anything other than observe and call of help.
And it's blindingly obvious, to me at least, that there are a variety of situations where observing and calling for help are ineffective responses. And any kind of rule that requires people to stick to ineffective responses is a rule that has been made too rigid. People should be allowed to attempt effective responses, and the fact that a particular attempt was carried out carelessly and ended badly is irrelevant to that principle.
[ 28. November 2012, 02:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
No, the question we started with was should those employees should have attempted that apprehension. The greater question is the value of property over life.
I am not certain anyone mentioned creating any new rules.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Which is why you need a list on the internet...
You say human life is more important property. Thieves are willing to risk their lives and take the lives of others in order to steal what doesn't belong to them. Some property owners are willing to risk their own lives or take the life of a thief in order to protect what they have.
Now, you may argue that property isn't worth the life of the thief or the owner of the property. Doesn't matter. Both thieves and property owners disagree with you. What you can do is offer yourself as any easy target for thief. If fewer people choose to offer themselves as easy targets for a thief, then fewer robberies will end in violence. Fewer robberies ending in violence will mean fewer lives lost over property. You may even want to purchase electronics and leave them on your front porch for anybody to take. Just depends on how many lives you want to save.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, the question we started with was should those employees should have attempted that apprehension.
I stand duly corrected.
In which case my response is: if they wanted to. Which apparently they did.
I just can't see that the result of their actions is very relevant.
[ 28. November 2012, 05:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'm out of here. I've nothing really to reply to anyone who wants to turn my unwillingness to kill into a fault.
Bye.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, the question we started with was should those employees should have attempted that apprehension.
I stand duly corrected.
In which case my response is: if they wanted to. Which apparently they did.
I just can't see that the result of their actions is very relevant.
Do you not think that any standard of proportionality applies? Are store employees - or even anyone who "wants to" - legally able to use deadly force to stop shoplifters?
Here's an article that suggests this is not the case (at least in the US): quote:
A security guard can never use excessive force. Excessive force can include, but is not limited to, appliation of pain, choking, or improper handcuff use.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, the question we started with was should those employees should have attempted that apprehension.
I stand duly corrected.
In which case my response is: if they wanted to. Which apparently they did.
I just can't see that the result of their actions is very relevant.
Do you not think that any standard of proportionality applies? Are store employees - or even anyone who "wants to" - legally able to use deadly force to stop shoplifters?
Here's an article that suggests this is not the case (at least in the US): quote:
A security guard can never use excessive force. Excessive force can include, but is not limited to, appliation of pain, choking, or improper handcuff use.
I never said anything about allowing people to use intentionally deadly force, and I already made reference to proportionality.
But there is a massive and completely unwarranted logical leap between 1. somebody died and 2. somebody intended to use deadly force, or somebody was reckless as to whether the force they used would be deadly, or even someone had the faintest CLUE that they might cause a death.
I've previously referred to the fact that in the criminal code around here, strict liability is pretty rare. We simply do not go around requiring people to not only not intending particular results, but to positively prevent those results.
That is what some of you to be asking. Not only that people trying to apprehend thieves are not allowed to intend to kill them (which they're not, although there's some controversy around home invasion laws in some US states) but that there's a positive obligation to prevent death.
It's completely unrealistic. It's one thing to say that the use of force has to be proportional, it's completely another to say that if death occurs, you must have been disproportionate.
I KNOW it's not the law because I know someone here who did indeed kill someone, in a self-defence situation. He actually pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and TWO different judges refused to accept the plea because on the agreed facts it couldn't be said that any of his actions were out of proportion to the situation he faced. They couldn't have been any clearer about it: he had killed someone (with a choke hold no less) and yet his response had been entirely proportionate.
I'm not going to try and second guess the facts of the particular case that started this thread. All I'm trying to say to you is that the outcome - a death - can play almost no part in deciding whether in fact the actions of those involved were proportionate to the situation. It's irrelevant. Trying to stop a thief is a reasonable thing to do. Trying to do it in a manual fashion is completely reasonable - a hell of a lot less dangerous to the thief than shooting them, actually. A choke hold MAY be perfectly reasonable, depending on the amount of struggle, and how long it went on for. It certainly isn't automatically unreasonable because it went wrong in the end.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What you can do is offer yourself as any easy target for thief. If fewer people choose to offer themselves as easy targets for a thief, then fewer robberies will end in violence. Fewer robberies ending in violence will mean fewer lives lost over property. You may even want to purchase electronics and leave them on your front porch for anybody to take. Just depends on how many lives you want to save.
Why are you repeating this irrelevant and illogical nonsense for the third time? Why not try to join in the conversation? Are you even reading what other people post?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It's both logical and relevant.
The real issue is if protection of property ever worth risking human life. Either you think it is or you think it isn't. However, if you think protection of property isn't worth risking the life of either the thief or property owner, offer your property as a sacrifice to save lives.
Property isn't more valuable than a human life, right?
[ 28. November 2012, 13:42: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not going to try and second guess the facts of the particular case that started this thread. All I'm trying to say to you is that the outcome - a death - can play almost no part in deciding whether in fact the actions of those involved were proportionate to the situation. It's irrelevant. Trying to stop a thief is a reasonable thing to do. Trying to do it in a manual fashion is completely reasonable - a hell of a lot less dangerous to the thief than shooting them, actually. A choke hold MAY be perfectly reasonable, depending on the amount of struggle, and how long it went on for. It certainly isn't automatically unreasonable because it went wrong in the end.
I'd add here that legally the two parts of this story may be seen as distinct incidents:
a) The theft and apprehension;
b) the fight taking place subsequent to the apprehension.
If that is the case (and it depends on the jurisdiction), then you're looking at apples and oranges. The thief wasn't "killed over a couple of DVD players"- he was restrained from attacking the staff members/security guard; said restraint ultimately ended in his death. If the staff/guard felt sufficiently threatened, this may well be justifiable. Or not.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Exactly
The thief didn't receive the death penalty for stealing two DVD players. He was unintentionally killed while in the act of stealing the DVD players. I'd say that if you broke into another person's home, stole stole their possessions, and attempted to get away that the home owner would be well within their rights to try and stop you using a gun. The home owner should try and wound the thief but if he or she misses thems the breaks. Some professions are more dangerous than others. Why should one expect being a thief to be one of the safe ones?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
However, if you think protection of property isn't worth risking the life of either the thief or property owner, offer your property as a sacrifice to save lives.
Property isn't more valuable than a human life, right?
Does the inverse apply to someone taking the contrary position? Should someone who believes their property to be more important than human lives be expected to go out and kill someone to prove their commitment to that point?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'd say that if you broke into another person's home, stole stole their possessions, and attempted to get away that the home owner would be well within their rights to try and stop you using a gun.
Not an exact metaphor to the situation under discussion. The shoplifter in question was visiting a store open to the general public during normal business hours. A better match would be someone the homeowner had invited into their home trying to leave with some of the homeowner's possessions. In other words, you're arguing that you're allowed to kill your dinner guests if they try to walk off with the silverware.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I'd expect somebody who believes it is just to use deadly force to protect their property to use deadly force to protect their property (or somebody else's property).
Using force to prevent theft is using force to prevent theft.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric, it appears some do believe property is worth life. This, too me, is saddening.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric, it appears some do believe property is worth life.
Well, on the face of it my TV is worth more to me that the life of some scumbag who wants to break in and steal it. I would rather have my TV in my living room than that scrote on the streets sizing up which family to attack next.
Honestly, I have no problem whatsoever with using force - even deadly force - to defend person and property. If people don't want to risk being killed over property then they can avoid it with ludicrous ease by not being a filthy thieving scumbag. Really, it's that easy. If nobody steals anything, the problem won't ever come up. Simples.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric, it appears some do believe property is worth life. This, too me, is saddening.
I'm sad you haven't already started the web site.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is property worth ending someone's life?
It's one of the things that got the Hatfield and McCoy feud going, an alleged pig thief. Theft of certain property in certain circumstances can mean the difference between your children surviving the winter/dry season or not.
That of course doesn't apply to the Wal-Mart DVD theft. I mention it only to say that lethal force to defend property is not always so clear cut as "No, never."
In the case of the OP, unless there is some evidence (witnesses, video surveilance) to show that the guard/employees used excessive force or the guard used improper techniques while apprehending the thief, then it's just an accident. The thief played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. No, he shouldn't lose his life over DVD players, but it's a risk he took. He should have bought a Powerball ticket with those odds.
As for a home invasion, it's not a license to kill. Most US states presume that the resident is in fear of their life and may use lethal force. They don't have to prove that. If it can be shown that the resident was not in fear of their life (e.g. Home owner executes an intruder they have subdued and tied up) the presumption is removed and it becomes a murder charge against the resident. I wouldn't kill someone who broke into my house to stop them from taking my stuff. I'll employ whatever means I deem necessary to stop them because I'm in fear of my life. I assume anyone breaking into my house means to do me and mine serious harm up to and including death. It has nothing to do with my stuff at that point. Once they stop (surrender, run away, unconscious, dead), so do I because I'm no longer in imminent fear of my life.
That said, I agree with Marvin, but I'll play by the legal rules above.
As for what Jesus would pack:
Blessed are the Peacemakers ...
[ 28. November 2012, 19:26: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
But why do you assume that, my default assumption would be that a burglar wanted to take stuff, probably to sell and quite likely to pay for a drug habit. I wouldn't assume they were likely to want to murder me.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
In the case of the OP, unless there is some evidence (witnesses, video surveilance) to show that the guard/employees used excessive force or the guard used improper techniques while apprehending the thief, then it's just an accident.
See the above post about the use of chokeholds.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric, it appears some do believe property is worth life. This, too me, is saddening.
And I think it's completely illogical to try and equate intentional actions with unintended consequences. But it's being done in this thread again and again.
Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric, it appears some do believe that the convenience of motorised transport is worth life. How saddening.
Does that not sound ridiculous?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
In the case of the OP, unless there is some evidence (witnesses, video surveilance) to show that the guard/employees used excessive force or the guard used improper techniques while apprehending the thief, then it's just an accident.
See the above post about the use of chokeholds.
Sorry. I missed that bit.
And there you have it. It's not just a simple accident any longer. I predict some form of negligent homicide or wrongful death suit coming his way.
As for why I assume that an intruder means to do me harm, it's based on crime reports and living in reality. The law (in most states if not all)agrees that a reasonable person is in fear of their life in a home invasion unless it can be proven otherwise. It's reasonable to assume that a criminal commiting a home invasion today is armed. It's also reasonable to assume that robbery may not be the only thing on their mind. I pray that never happens. Taking another person's life would be a horrible thing to live with, even if it is legally justified. But I'd rather live with that than to know that my family was harmed/killed because I was unable or unwilling to act. I don't ever want to be in that situation. I live in a nice neighborhood and have solid locks on my doors and windows and have a monitored security system. But bad things sometimes happen to good people in nice parts of town.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
As for why I assume that an intruder means to do me harm, . . .
As also mentioned previously, I'm not sure there's a reasonable way to construe someone in a store during normal business hours as "an intruder".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
As for why I assume that an intruder means to do me harm, . . .
As also mentioned previously, I'm not sure there's a reasonable way to construe someone in a store during normal business hours as "an intruder".
There isn't. I was replying to DT's query.
Based on the facts presented of the guard's actions, there's no justification. He was wrong. Period.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Are store employees - or even anyone who "wants to" - legally able to use deadly force to stop shoplifters?
I never said anything about allowing people to use intentionally deadly force, and I already made reference to proportionality.
So your answer is no, I take it. I asked because I'm trying to understand what you think the limits on their actions actually are, not just what they're not. I agree that in this case, they aren't limited by the notion of strict liability, and that employees may be allowed to do more than just watch and call the police, but your casual phrasing ("if they wanted to") and peculiar likening of this situation to employing the Heimlich maneuver to save a life left this point obscure to me. quote:
A choke hold MAY be perfectly reasonable, depending on the amount of struggle, and how long it went on for. It certainly isn't automatically unreasonable because it went wrong in the end.
From the information in the sites that Croesus and I have found I'm pretty sure that a chokehold is, in fact, not considered a reasonable measure for a store security guard. (I rather suspect that even tackling him in the parking lot was probably beyond the measures approved by the Walmart employee handbook.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric, it appears some do believe property is worth life. This, too me, is saddening.
And I think it's completely illogical to try and equate intentional actions with unintended consequences. But it's being done in this thread again and again.
Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric, it appears some do believe that the convenience of motorised transport is worth life. How saddening.
Does that not sound ridiculous?
It sounds ridiculous because the comparison
is ridiculous. But, my statement was a bit provocative so perhaps your reply is fair go.
That someone could be hurt as a result of the Walmart manager's actions requires no special foresight.
The threat to person/home invasion scenarios are not part of the questions I am asking.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
From the information in the sites that Croesus and I have found I'm pretty sure that a chokehold is, in fact, not considered a reasonable measure for a store security guard. (I rather suspect that even tackling him in the parking lot was probably beyond the measures approved by the Walmart employee handbook.)
Yes, it would appear that it is not in accordance with security guard training. And that would certainly be highly relevant when considering the actions of the security guard, specifically.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric, it appears some do believe property is worth life. This, too me, is saddening.
And I think it's completely illogical to try and equate intentional actions with unintended consequences. But it's being done in this thread again and again.
Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric, it appears some do believe that the convenience of motorised transport is worth life. How saddening.
Does that not sound ridiculous?
It sounds ridiculous because the comparison
is ridiculous. But, my statement was a bit provocative so perhaps your reply is fair go.
That someone could be hurt as a result of the Walmart manager's actions requires no special foresight.
The threat to person/home invasion scenarios are not part of the questions I am asking.
It sounds ridiculous, but there's nothing ridiculous about the comparison. It's clear that you value motorised transport more highly than you value property - or at least, store property rather than personal property - because you're prepared to accept a small but recognised risk of death in the case of motorised transport, but not in the case of protecting store property.
Which may well be a reasonable set of priorities. The problem I have is in suggesting that other people ought not to attempt to protect property because of the risks.
This is what I keep coming back to: the fundamental difference between telling people that when performing an activity, they need to take care (which is exactly what we'd say to everyone in relation to motorised transport) and telling people they simply shouldn't attempt the activity.
Your original question was: should they have tried to apprehend the thief? To which my answer is: Yes.
Should they have been careful while doing this is a completely different question, to which my answer is also: Yes.
DID they take care while doing this is another question again, and that's where my answer might change. And it's the only one of these 3 questions where the actual outcome becomes really relevant. It's also the question where there's no risk of hindsight colouring the assessment, because it's the question about what actually happened.
[ 29. November 2012, 03:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That someone could be hurt as a result of the Walmart manager's actions requires no special foresight.
PS On this point, because you've hit on a critical question as far as the law is concerned. And, I think, morals as well.
Reasonable foreseeability.
You are entirely correct. That someone could be hurt was reasonably foreseeable.
But it's never been the law that you must ENSURE that a reasonably foreseeable risk doesn't come to pass. The existence of risk creates a duty of care. It doesn't create a duty of prevention.
In any case, that someone 'could be hurt' isn't even the right risk. The right question is: was it foreseeable that someone could die?
And perhaps the answer is still yes. But again, this doesn't create a duty to ensure death doesn't occur. A duty of care isn't automatically breached just because the thing you had to be careful about happens.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Duty? Perhaps not. Moral responsibility, though? I think yes.
I have put myself in harm's way to protect another. The possibility of hurting the aggressor was there as well, of course.
I would not do so for DVD players, even were they mine.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I just think your position is completely unworkable. I can see the slogan now:
quote:
Wal-Mart. We won't try to stop you. Why steal anywhere else?
Shoplifting costs us all money. Stores raise prices to cover the price of the stock they lose. Make it easier to steal, more gets stolen. Price goes up. More people can't afford the goods and have greater incentive to steal them instead, especially if it's easy to do.
Before long, store stops stocking easy-to-steal products or goes out of business. Those who have resisted the temptation to steal and who could still afford to buy can no longer buy because the product isn't even there.
Forget protecting that DVD player. You won't have one to begin with.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm going to requote your OP, just to illustrate how fundamentally wrong I think the question is.
quote:
Walmart employees in Georgia, USA have apparently killed a man who stole DVD players. While it is entirely likely this was an accident, should they have attempted apprehension of the thief?
And here's what I think the question SHOULD be:
quote:
Walmart employees in Georgia, USA attempted to apprehend a man who stole DVD players. Should they have attempted apprehension of the thief?
Because at the moment of decision, that is what the store employees were faced with.
And my answer? Yes. If you want DVD players to even be in the shops. For the reason I just gave.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Let's try and simplify this a bit.
These people work in a store. They were doing their job. One was a security guard. They tried to apprehend a thief. It was in the middle of the night. He might, for all they knew, have been armed. Unfortunately, something went wrong, and the thief ended up dead. That's sad for the thief, but shouldn't they be commended rather than condemned, for doing their duty, both civic and as employees?
Any police force that wasn't as jealous for its monopoly of its functions as an Anglo-Catholic priest in Brighton, ought to be praising them.
Why should it make a difference whether the thief was trying to get in or trying to get his loot out?
While one appreciates that a shop owes a duty not to endanger customers, to protect them from faulty goods, have shelving fall on them etc, what duty , if any, do we really think we ought to owe someone who is trying to injure us or steal from us? Do we really regard a shoplifter as a customer who deserves any protection at all?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am not condemning the store manager. Never did I say I was condemning anyone.
Most people do not steal because they think it wrong. Of those that might be inclined to do so, fear of the police, not store employees, keep them in check. Fear the employees, and other customers, will notice and alert security or police.
ETA: I do not condone thievery. But not all thieves are equal. I am not going all Jean ValJean on you, but reasons vary.
[ 29. November 2012, 14:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
I think the first thing that's getting lost in this discussion is the great frequency with which things are stolen from retailers. Any large big-box store, like Walmart, will have security officers who become aware of items being shoplifted dozens of times throughout the day. I've read through the loss prevention procedures for a couple of major retailers that have been leaked to the internet, and am amazed at the degree to which the retailers simply document the event without confronting or intervening the thief.
Part of their logic is that a regular customer who has a habit of stealing, say, socks, is usually still a profitable customer.
Part of their logic is that they don't want to disrupt the shopping experience or create the negative connotations for the store that come with confronting someone.
Because of the way these loss management procedures tend to be written, I would guess that the thief in this incident was known to the store because they had observed him stealing items from the store in the past. Had that not been the case, they would have just documented the event and would never have confronted him.
So I think we have to view the retailer's actions in the context that this was, in all likelihood, a person who was known to the store who had repeatedly stolen things, to the point where the store believed that they had to do something to stop the ongoing pattern of thefts.
I think it's clear that the mall ninja used way too much force, and anticipate that he will spend four years in a cage somewhere on manslaughter charges.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
... and anticipate that he will spend four years in a cage somewhere on manslaughter charges.
Quite likely.
After all, he's not even an employee of Walmart. He was provided by a subcontractor, paid a pittance by the hour, probably expected to pay for his own uniform by deductions from his wages, given minimal or no training, and if he can find a lawyer at all, it will be some inexperienced youngster who is required to do so many hours of pro bono work to meet his or her training regime.
It's the male equivalent of an office cleaner. Only low class people have to do jobs like that. He may well be black or hispanic. Like as not his employer won't stand by him. So why should we care either?
I've just realised. I'd better be careful. Some people don't do irony.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
