Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nonsense.
The guy with a slim Jim in your car window or a crowbar against your front door hasn't done anything, then.
And yes, they have a legal "right" to apprehend him.
If someone commits a crime, absent a policy like there was in this case, the victim has a right to use reasonable force to stop the theft from occurring.
For about eighty-second time, what went wrong is two-fold:
1. The store had a policy specifically forbidding its employees from attempting to apprehend this man.
2. Reasonable force was not used unless you believe tackling a person, breaking their ribs, sitting on them, and finally killing them is reasonable force.
My final point would be that there must be an actual crime committed to give anyone at any time the right to effect a citizen's arrest. Whether or a crime had actually been committed here may depend on the way that the statutes of that state are written.
If it sounds technical than it is. The law doesn't favor citizens using force to stop crimes. It favors them calling the authorities instead.
I'm in agreement with you. Well written.
Mark's post is well-written but I don't agree. We weren't there. The store's policy (as in effect at another major store when I was in an analogous situation in 1975) is designed to protect the store from liability but can leave employees and customers in a very dangerous situation. On or about December 23, 1975, I was working the late shift at a major White Plains department store (while on holiday from college). It started snowing and many of the staff left. A tall gentleman approached me on the floor and demanded money to get his car started. I gave him $5 from my wallet. I also immediately contacted store security. I was fired the next day, even though I gave the man no money from the cash registers. When I was fired I was told I had "endangered the store." The fact is that they were willing to leave the store open after allowing many of the employees to depart, leaving the store dangerously understaffed. Their only concern was their own liability.
As for the use of reasonable force, we don't know what happened. Homeless people, by that age, are often rather fragile. That would not have been known to the three employees.
Last week we were driving on a major Vermont secondary road, one lane each way with a 50 mph speed limit. Straddling the center line was a wooden ladder, laying on its side, sticking about 3 feet onto either direction of the road. I could not slow down fast enough, with traffic behind me, to remove the ladder myself. The 911 operator wanted a lot of personal information about me. I hung up when I had told the 911 operator the nature and location of the debris and she acknowledged by reference to a landmark that she knew where it was.
I wound up calling 911. Two questions:
Was this a proper 911 call; and
Was I right to hang up when I had told the 911 operator the nature and location of the debris so as not to embroil myself in whatever issues may arise later?
Instead of focusing on immediately dealing with the hazard or crime, then, the "authorities" are concentrating on bureaucratic imperatives.
The main reason I strongly support the employees is that I want the risk to be higher for the perpetrator than legitimate society when a crime is committed or about to be committed.
Instead of focusing on immediately dealing with the hazard or crime, then, the "authorities" are concentrating on bureaucratic imperatives.
You do realize that the 911 operator is not the one who responds to the calls, right?
Quote:
The main reason I strongly support the employees is that I want the risk to be higher for the perpetrator than legitimate society when a crime is committed or about to be committed.
What risk was there to others in the store that this man needed to be killed?
And you think employees should also be able to cause physical harm to someone even before a crime has been committed, like if they think someone is thinking of commuting a crime? That sounds like a disaster just waiting to happen.
You do realize that the 911 operator is not the one who responds to the calls, right?
Duh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00
What risk was there to others in the store that this man needed to be killed?
And you think employees should also be able to cause physical harm to someone even before a crime has been committed, like if they think someone is thinking of commuting a crime? That sounds like a disaster just waiting to happen.
You're missing the point. It's the overall sense of order. Why do so many see no value in upholding the concept that people should work for money rather than steal it? Or get it from some government program?
Duh.
You're missing the point. It's the overall sense of order. Why do so many see no value in upholding the concept that people should work for money rather than steal it? Or get it from some government program?
I'd like for people to earn their money. How many high ups like the Wells Fargo CEOs, get away with millions, but we're going after small fish like $300 worth of DVDs?
Well you seemed confused in your post about how things worked, so I wasn't sure.
Quote:
You're missing the point. It's the overall sense of order. Why do so many see no value in upholding the concept that people should work for money rather than steal it? Or get it from some government program?
But there are proper ways to go about upholding the law. 3 Wal-Mart employees killing a man is not the way to do it. It doesn't matter if they didn't originally wake up that morning planning on killing a man, it still happened. They went against what there employer told them to do in such a situation, and things went horribly wrong. This is why businesses don't want their employees taking the law into their own hands. They were not properly trained, and ended up killing someone.
Are we now assuming this man was on government assistance?
I'd like for people to earn their money. How many high ups like the Wells Fargo CEOs, get away with millions, but we're going after small fish like $300 worth of DVDs?
Not a bad point but irrelevant to this issue. The WF executive is not personally threatening the overall sense of public order. Though personally I think he deserves a place in hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00
Well you seemed confused in your post about how things worked, so I wasn't sure.
Who is confused? I think I know what a 911 dispatcher does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00
But there are proper ways to go about upholding the law. 3 Wal-Mart employees killing a man is not the way to do it. It doesn't matter if they didn't originally wake up that morning planning on killing a man, it still happened. They went against what there employer told them to do in such a situation, and things went horribly wrong. This is why businesses don't want their employees taking the law into their own hands. They were not properly trained, and ended up killing someone.
Are we now assuming this man was on government assistance?
These "proper ways" go by the wayside when governments are unable because of resource limitations or unwilling because of political correctness to enforce the law.
Who is confused? I think I know what a 911 dispatcher does.
Just didn't seem like it from your post.
Quote:
These "proper ways" go by the wayside when governments are unable because of resource limitations or unwilling because of political correctness to enforce the law.
So let's just have vigilante justice and ignore the constitution by killing anyone you even think might want to commit a crime? I'd rather that didn't happen.
You're missing the point. It's the overall sense of order. Why do so many see no value in upholding the concept that people should work for money rather than steal it? Or get it from some government program?
You can think stealing is wrong yet disagree with dying because of it. Why do so many see no value in human lives?
Not a bad point but irrelevant to this issue. The WF executive is not personally threatening the overall sense of public order. Though personally I think he deserves a place in hell.
I don't feel threatened by some guy stealing DVDs. I do however feel my sense of autonomy, freedom and health is highly threatened by executives and others in power who dictate pricing, healthcare, product safety guidelines, etc.
You can think stealing is wrong yet disagree with dying because of it. Why do so many see no value in human lives?
Good point. Those who don't value human lives -- I tend to think they are the ones who are value-less to society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
