Exactly! Being a Security Guard is 80% COMMON SENSE 10% CUSTOMER SERVICE and 10% ACTUAL JOB DUTIES; which consists of OBSERVING AND REPORTING. The guard foolishly placed himself, other customers and walmart at risk. tisk! tisk!

The difference here is that it was not his personal property; he placed himself in harm's way and could have gotten Walmart SUED. Security Guards need to STOP playing cop.

Oughta charge her with public urination too.

@Nate128: my take is that she was probably wearing a skirt or dress or maybe even leggings and just pissed thru her clothing on him.

"The bottom of the body fell into the passenger's seat and the front part in the back of the car," Regan said. "Then she sat on him. He grabbed his phone and called 911, but she fought for the phone and then urinated on him."

For some people, that qualifies as fore-play.

Maybe he'll be luckier.

Your generalizations about the individual involved without knowing anything about him or the circumstance (not to mention your generalizations about me) are very revealing.

I was simply using a basic example of why a blanket statement like "average citizens should not take it upon themselves to exact vigilante justice" are a bit much.

Next time actually read and take time to comprehend on my comment before quickly jumping to a ridiculous angle on it.

If you can't understand the need to defend someone's life and safety versus defending worthless Chinese made crap and some hick rent-a-cop's ego, you have BIIIIIIG problems.

If the guard had won and beat her, as wrong as that is, her former Robbery conviction would have mitigated his sentence.

Unless they have a REAL badge and a loaded gun, call the REAL cops to act.

The one that matters here, Michigan law only seems to have carjacking legislation, that wouldn't apply here as the statute specifies criminal intent: "in the course of committing a larceny of a motor vehicle".

So maybe in some states Walmart need lawyers rushing out in the parking lots too lol.

On the other hand, Walmart corporate and/or the guard are in the wrong for physically intervening over $45 and over curtains and make-up. This guard's life and safety are or should be worth more than $45. Once it is clear guilty parties are fleeing, he should call the police and let them handle it. By encouraging guards to act like storm troopers, they have introduced a shopping environment of fear for the rest of the shoppers, and that is wrong.

This will only lead to real criminals using deadly force to steal chewing gum, not to mention non-criminal consumers being more resistant, angry and less cooperative with over-zealous guards now.

This story is what happens when trailer trash criminals meet trailer trash retail corporations.

Beat up by bitches? There goes his dignity.

Let's have another one, just like the other one!

@notlupus:

Like their commissary allowance for cigs.

Muskegon Michigan, motto: "You may get assaulted and peed on, we may have the highest unemployment in the nation, but at least we have really nice beaches."

Ha! Glad you said it. I was thinking the exact same thing.

On topic, I have to say that this is absolutely hilarious, wish I had been there. Almost makes me want to go to Walmart once in a while. Almost.

She PEED on him?

PEED on him? Jesus Christ.

@Shaftoe: The pair in those photos don't look as if 'dignity' had ever been an issue they'd have been too concerned about.

Criminals are Criminals.

Child Molester, Murder, Shoplifting.

The prison terms might differ, but each of these are crimes.

So why is anybody defending the actions of a criminal?

And what is "loss prevention" besides another employee? They are not police.

That said, employees ARE allowed by law to do more than what you've implied. See Shopkeeper's Privilege.

Whether it's against store policy is largely irrelevant as to what is legally allowed.

And it DOESN'T fall under self defense. Self defense defenses usually don't work after the criminal act has occurred. You call the police. Moreover, self-defense is usually a defense for batteries, not robbery (YMMV).

[books.google.com]'s+privilege&source=bl&ots=k1dKlkaF6x&sig=RR7Tf9AOmfYczYPRDHvs7cTEhkk&hl=en&ei=DN_9SqOyAcXdnAeBleWcCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=shopkeeper's%20privilege&f=false

I'll say what I say in every post about fraud: No one 'deserves' to have a crime committed against them.* That's why it's a crime to do it.

You don't 'deserve' to have your car stolen if you forget to lock it.
You don't 'deserve' to be ripped off for not recognizing a phishing e-mail.
You don't 'deserve' to be raped for wearing a short skirt.
You don't 'deserve' to be peed on for standing in someone's way.

*You could make the argument that a thief deserves to be stolen from, but you know what I mean.

Some of the posters here are insane! I can't believe the sympathy for the shoplifters - not shoppers! - here. I guess Wal-Mart is always wrong here.

But since he did interfere with their efforts (and they fought back), they were charged with two felonies and not simply misdemeanors. If he hadn't interfered, they probably would've been sentenced to fines and community service.

@Skipweasel: not from that lady!!

Apparently if you are on Wal-Mart property, even in a parking lot they own or lease, and they believe you have stolen something, they can take reasonable steps to detain you until police arrive.

Now whether Wal-Mart policy permits that in most cases, I don't know.

This should happen regularly, with gusto, relish, and ketchup to guards checking receipts.

In fact, there ought to be a civilian head-butting pee brigade whose only duty is to shop at various megamarts and then head butt and urinate on the guards and management.

Poor guy.

Also after I think about it I hope the security guard files civil charges against these women and take them for what little they are worth

Seriously what is wrong with society where you can be assaulted by shoplifters, but if you try and defend yourself you get fired! What type of people seem to think this behavior is socially acceptable?

My understanding is a guard can pursue you within close proximity to the premises in which the offense occurred. it appears he did this. He was assaulted while blocking a SHOPLIFTER not someone who did not wish to show a receipt but someone that did steal.

Our judicial system has lost the 'justice' it is suppose to stand for. To bad he did not have that judge from New York that has been written up here from time to time to talk to the prosecutor's office and set them straight.

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. [news.slashdot.org]

@Trai_Dep: Of course it is. Can't rely on the police to do everything for you. Sometimes it's quicker and more efficient to just get out your gun.

But seriously... URINATING on the guy? What happened? She was sitting on him and had an accident at the same time?!

So if I stumble upon a woman being sexually assaulted I should just simply go dial 911 instead of you know.. helping? Maybe even hurting the guy in the process?

I'd say a blanket statement like "average citizens should not take it upon themselves to exact vigilante justice" is a bit much.

I sometimes wonder if people on this website have any empathy at all.

The issue will be did the security guard or another walmart employee see the women take the items off the shelf and avoid paying for the items. If they didn't actually see them then the security guard had no legal right to detain the women. The law allows the women to resist being detained if walmart didn't have the right to detain them.

Since one of the women was on parole for bank robbery, the court won't believe anything the women say. The court will believe any reasonable statement made by the security guard.

@Trai_Dep: No, they wouldn't. But what about the RIAA?

Clearly there was a line that he shouldn't have crossed. But, I don't think he crossed it. He wasn't trying to get into the vehicle, there is no indication that he intended to touch her. I looks like he just wanted to be an obstacle (which, I suppose he was since speed bumps are obstacles). Yes, he could have been shot or stabbed. That could have happened in the store as well. Nevertheless, I will give you the violation of Walmart policy.

But, what he did wasn't vigilante justice. Moreover, nothing he did merited the urination or kidnapping.

Having seen the mugshots of these two ladies, I doubt that the security guard thought of them as people that looked easy to detain.

Self-defense?!

@Hank Scorpio:

You just don't understand football, Marge...

@kcvaliant:

Over zealous is the only kind of zealous I know how to be!

Well, it would be so nice to see one of the Waltons get peed on instead of a guard trying to protect cheap plastic crap from China.

I wouldn't really call detaining a shoplifter vigilante justice. Good thing those 20 people at the high school dance didn't take it upon themselves to try and help that girl getting raped. Judging by the reaction of a lot of people on here, standing by and letting a crime happen is the way to go. Oh, I guess someone could have called the police and hoped they showed up 15-60 minutes. That way only 5-6 people could have their way with her before they arrived.

Actually, it is. DVD is a trademark managed by the DVD Forum. Similarly, so is "Compact Disc", which is managed by Philips and Sony. This was an issue a few years ago when copy protection software was getting more common on CDs and Philips threatened to refuse to allow such discs to be referred to as "compact discs" because they violated the necessary specifications for the format.

Well, if you're a dog or cat, it's a relatively normal reaction...

@pecan 3.14159265: It's better to err on the side of caution and assume that all thieves may be armed than it is to chase after someone and risk putting yourself and others in very serious danger. Especially when it's not your job to do so.

And that's what makes this an issue for me. Sure things turned out reasonably well, but the guard acting outside his station without any concern given to the very real danger that he could have been putting himself and others in by doing it. What he did was wholly irresponsible, even if it's sort of admirable in some small way, and it was just blind luck that the thieves turned out to be unarmed.

So sure, the circumstances may be different in every case, but the common thread running through each one is that we have someone who isn't entitled by either the law or the letter of his job description to chase folks down, but who takes it upon himself to do so anyway, and who risks not only his own safety in the process, but that of everyone around him as well. It's bad enough that he's putting himself in danger on behalf of a company that couldn't care less about him, but that his actions risk putting others in danger as well is beyond unacceptable. It's something that I will never be cool with no matter whether or not it turns out okay in the end.

@lukesdad: Huh? Your comments don't even apply to this case. It doesn't sound like he physically detained them, and he DID let them proceed into the parking lot before confronting them. Soooooo....yeah.

The guy in this article (and those in the many similar articles we see here from time to time) did a lot of things wrong, thanks most likely to poor training and/or clueless management. Some states allow security to use handcuffs and to forcibly detain uncooperative shoplifters -- even allowing the security people some of the same protections under the law that cops gets in similar situations.

Either way, in every state I am familiar with, you must let the person bypass the payment area and leave the store before you can confront them. In most cases it really doesn't matter who owns the parking lot.

I don't work in retail loss prevention (thank God) but I do work in corporate (read: private) security, so I feel the need to say that for every one of these articles about some dumb, obviously untrained security goon, there are plenty of folks who do a good job confronting and apprehending shoplifters. Most just using *verbal* confrontation and using actual, quality training to get people to return to the store to pay for the merchandise they "forgot" about or to wait for the cops.

Think about it. Every time you read one of these stories, where are the security guards working? Walmart? Target? You rarely see similar stories about guards working at Nordstoms or Neiman Marcus, etc. Do you think they don't have security? Or is it just that they do a better job of it?

@nbs2: In CT, purposely making someone come in contact with your bodily fluids against their will is sexual assault. Because of these morons: [forums.nasioc.com]

What I don't understand is the tone of the article.

"Or did he have it coming?" Really? Because I can't think of anybody who deserves to be heatbutted, sat on and peed on. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't go into whether or not he was out of line, but she absolutely should be charged with assault and they both should be charged with kidnapping.

I'd like to think that there was some semblance of size parity between the guard and shoplifter, but in reality nobody knows anything beyond the the few sentences in the article.

no he didn't, but he shouldn't have jumped in a vehicle. He is a security guard, not a police officer. Still, I think the crooks should spend some time in jail obviously.

First off, there's no mention in the article whether the security guard as actually such, a private security contractor not directly employed by WalMart or one of their in-house loss prevention associates.

In either case though, once the women ran out the door--notify police, notify management, get a good description of the suspects, try to get vehicle description/license plate number, etc. But DO NOT try to give further chase at that point. Thus preventing problems like this from happening in the first place.

I'm having a problem with the peeing part, really. Do not ask why this the only problem I'm having with this story.

This is not a little woman. I'm having a hard time picturing her jumping on this guy, while he's already in the car passenger seat, and wrestling his phone away then intentionally taking a whiz on him in what was probably her or her friend's car.

She probably lost control of her bladder in the fight. Unless peeing on your opponent is something you learn in prison.

I totally see all the rest of it.

@vladthepaler: In what universe does self-defense require her to pee on him?

@chaoss13: The amount of bail isn't entirely based on the charges - other factors taken into consideration are the defendants likeliness to show up in court and their likeliness to skip town.

@Kimaroo - Fortified with Kittydus Purrularis: @Michael Belisle: I think it would help if we had some idea of what the guard looked like. If the guard was 6'1 and 185 pounds, I could see that maybe he didn't see the woman's size as as much of a threat, and perhaps he felt he was more able to stand in her way, rather than grab a license plate number.

I love consumerist and sure Wal-Mart sucks but come on...be humans

@pecan 3.14159265: I think people are just used to saying "DVD" kind of like kleenex or Qtip. Not that DVD is a brand.. but you get what I'm saying.

@pecan 3.14159265: Yes.. I guess he could have been more cautious.. but he didn't really lay any hands on anyone.

The only reason I mentioned "deserved" is because of the article saying "Is there any sympathy out there for the zealous security guard? Or did he have it coming?"

That's a bit much. For me atleast.

Oh COME ON, give the poor guy a break, he got peed on for trying to stop shoplifters for christ's sake...

1) There were at least 3 items if the total was under $50 (only 1 if over $50)

2) Clear video footage showing the item being hidden

Only once that person reached the door would they be approached. We were only allowed to hold them if the police had been notified.

This, however, changes if there is violent activity, theft, destruction of property or the person looked to be a threat to the safety of others. Even in that case we usually had to call to our supervisors to handle it. The police would also be on scene within minutes for serious cases.

From what I read it doesn't look like the security guard ever touched them but just got in their way. Then again the article doesn't get too detailed. If the two women can't prove they were acting in self defense I would think the security guard could pursue assault and kidnapping charges.

I heart you.

@Michael Belisle: We're not all in agreement. There are shades of grey, as usual. In some cases, the shoplifters had weapons and many commenters thought the guard in that case should not have chased after the shoplifter in the store - doing so put himself in explicit danger, and put other shoppers in explicit danger. Just an example, but it shows that not all cases are the same.

@Kimaroo - Fortified with Kittydus Purrularis: I don't think anyone is using the assault as an excuse for a just-world hypothesis. I don't think anyone is saying he deserved it. But a lot of us probably think he could have taken a more cautious tactic.

He's actually pretty lucky to only get leaked on. In that situation, he was ripe for all kinds of thumping; it could have been really ugly had she wanted to go there. Let alone the two vs one thing.

Really bad from a tactical viewpoint AND from a policy point, as you say. Although, some good might come out of this. Future Wal-Mart managers can hold him up as an example not to go all Rambo on shoplifters, ending with, "...Or you might get peed on. By a girl."

What might work: why not arm their guards with Flip Video cameras? You'd think the footage of them refusing to stop then driving away would be compelling video for the jury, if it came to that.

@kaceetheconsumer: I completely agree. I can't even see why this is a question to be discussed.

And it's a shame that people can't understand a security gaurd taking pride in his job in trying to stop a shoplifter. I understand that it's Walmart policy for their "associates" not to stop a shoplifter, but that seems like it would be the security gaurd's job. I know he can't do everything a police officer can do, but I don't see how he went out of his job discription in what he did here.

He definitely didn't deserve to be kidnapped and peed on. Geez.

Well, at least we know what side of human decency Phil stands on now.

@Kimaroo - Fortified with Kittydus Purrularis: Technically, Blu-Rays aren't DVDs. They're a separate format. But I see your point.

Retail employees can go over to the person and ask them if they need help or try to do something to keep them in the store longer but they cannot confront the shoplifter directly for what they did. The only thing they can do is call loss prevention if they are able to get to the phone without the shoplifter hearing them.

Again from my understanding a child under 18 cannot be charged with shoplifting at least over here, so a lot of times the parents are in on it with the kids, basically teaching their kids to shoplift. When they get brought into the back the parent pretends to care that their kid did something wrong when in reality they are a team.

@The Dude: The difference is that the women didn't commit theft against the guard. They committed theft against the store, and the store as the offended party, has a policy against running after these criminals.

If someone takes your stuff, and you catch them doing it, you can reasonably try to get your stuff back and detain them using reasonable means (it falls under self defense). But that's an individual, not a person who was given a set of guidelines to follow in case of theft, and went against those guidelines.

With that out of the way, this is completely different. Honestly I think it should be up to the security guard whether they are charged with assault and some flavor of kidnapping - carefully explain to him to the ramifications for them, and then let him decide.

Still, the smart thing for him to have done would have been getting the license plate, make-model-color etc, and leaving it at that. He's definitely not being paid enough to a) be a hero, and b) probably break Walmart's policies and risk being fired.

@PTB315: I thought BluRay movies cost that much.

@vladthepaler: First, guards can and have been fired for going after shoplifters. Second, the shoplifter who headbutted him could not have been doing so in self defense, as he was not threatening bodily harm to her. He was merely blocking her way, and she had run from the store after allegedly shoplifting items. He was not threatening her.

@admiral_stabbin: There's probably some people that would pay a king's ransom to get head butted and peed on. It's not every day you get something like that for FREE! He didn't even need a coupon.

@Scuba Steve: Pretty sure by the time he walked the 3 miles to the electronics section he would have missed the shoplifters. But he could've used the camera on his cell phone, if he had one with him.

What DVD costs $29.99? Maybe a box set or something.

@nbs2: "Detained" seems like such an official term for what probably amounted to the guard and a few clerks watching the women and telling them to stay put. While it may not be against the law to chase after shoplifters, it's against Wal-Mart's policy, and he broke policy to exact what he felt was rightful justice.

Here is where I am torn. Corps have a tendency to generalize. Assume everyone is stealing and treat them so and we will catch the real thiefs.
Sure but at the expense of the dignity and sometimes safety of the bulk of customers who simply want to transact business and go about their day.
I have long felt that approach was wrong and what should happens is assume everyone is on the up and up and if you have proof of wrong doing come down on em like a ton of bricks.

I'm guilty of joking about doing so on numerous occasions, but who does that? As far as I'm concerned, that lady has now earned "Super Villain" status in my book. Now she just needs a name...

Urealicious? Chupapissra? The Notorious P.I.S.S.?

@pecan 3.14159265: Watch Serenity lately (at least, that was the last time I heard that hero line)?

I know your other posts make it clear you are not arguing this, but how was he engaged in vigilante justice? They were detained *in* the store, and broke away. He had position and his feet were set (conjecture, but it sounds like it from the article), they were guilty of charging. They made first, and apparently all, contact. They detained him in the vehicle. I'm not sure where he engaged in vigilante justice.

The security guard should have taken a polaroid, and gotten the license plate #. Let the cops handle it.

That being said, Assault, definitely.

@sleze69: I shall not stand between you and your apparently righteous fury, sir.

@balthisar: That's the thing - he didn't detain them outside the store. He probably should have had 911 called by someone in the store ahead of time (maybe he did, unclear, as authorities should have been notified when they were detained inside the store), and thus blocking the path would have been a delaying tactic to give police time to respond. Nothing wrong with delaying - only detaining.

@balthisar: That's the thing - he didn't detain them outside the store. He probably should have had 911 called by someone in the store ahead of time (maybe he did, unclear, as authorities should have been notified when they were detained inside the store), and thus blocking the path would have been a delaying tactic to give police time to respond. Nothing wrong with delaying - only detaining.

Still, how the women acted is a shame.

@What The Geek: But, he didn't touch them. From what I can tell, he got in her way.

Even if he was in the way, and even if he had no detention rights, the uriniation served no purpose in preventing him from being a threat to her or a third party, and I'm pretty sure was an unwanted touching. Taking him with them is kidnapping - it doesn't sound like he was holding on to the car to try and Fred Flinstone heel-brake their getaway.

2 people, one a habitual offender, charged with 2 felonies. Total bail was set at 50K. Am I the only one seeing that as a low amount for the level of the charges at hand?

I think assault with a dead-ugly weapon can be added, seeing the pictures...

As long as all the criteria to make an arrest are there, they can go ahead with it. While I'm not sure that's the case here, you can be arrested once you leave the store if you are in fact shoplifting.

Hope I am not oversimplifying here.

@squablow: I've heard that the definition of a hero is someone who gets other people killed. Average citizens should not take it upon themselves to exact vigilante justice.

@Chumas: $45 isn't worth potentially getting seriously hurt/losing your life over. Just as you said, the shit is insured. Still a shame he got messed up, though.

Also worth noting, somewhere around the year 2000, the law changed to prevent shoplifters getting manhandled. Store security really shouldn't be touching you at all, even if you're a shoplifter. Why? Because they're store security with several full days worth of training - not a law enforcement official with months, and in some cases years of training.

Just because it's a man being humiliated in that way doesn't make it okay. He shouldn't have to suck it up and deal.

He may have been foolish but foolishness doesn't deserve assault, and they should be charged with assault. If they had just pushed past him, I would say no, but they elevated the situation beyond self-defense when they abducted him and peed on him.

@UCLAri: I can think of a few people that I would like to headbutt and pee on...and they would deserve it.

Yeah, he totally deserved it!
/sarcasm

He will think twice the next time he feels like Robocop.

@Anathema777: Yeah, deserves is a very strong word. No one deserves to be assaulted and humiliated like that. He made mistakes in how he tried to apprehend the perpetrators, but it's not as if those mistakes somehow made it okay for a woman to assault him.

Deserve? You thought that the security guard, though maybe overzealous, deserved to be hurt and humiliated?

That's actually pretty disgusting.

@Azuaron: I think if he was so close he could step in front of the passenger side door, he's close enough to get a look at the license plate. He should have done that instead.

I'm not sure what difference it makes whether inside the store or not. Although the parking lot is usually still the store's property.

[www.legalmatch.com]

@Azuaron: Once they are out of the store, the security guard has no right to detain anyone. As a matter of fact, the guard has no right to detain you INSIDE the store, either. He can only ask you to follow him to a back room.

Why do you think that so many employees get fired for chasing down shoplifters? It's because the company can be sued.

I don't advocate or condone assault against anyone under any circumstances, so I wouldn't side with the alleged perpetrators here. But I also don't think the security guard should have run after them. It was $45 in merchandise, and nothing "valuable" like electronics. He put himself directly in harms way for $45 of goods - why? They had already left and were at the car.

One of the women had been released April 3 after serving prison time for a bank robbery! And this was the same woman who sat on the guard, and she weighed 230 pounds, which gives you an idea of why the security guard couldn't get away from her.

What about interfering with someone trying to call 911. That is a serious crime, is it not?

@Azuaron: I agree, they had a right (i guess) to defend themselves from his attempt, but she continued to sit on him and pee on him.

For a security guard he did a poor job of stopping two women. If it was plain as day that they stole stuff, good job of trying to stop them.

Of course the counter point is not to be overzealous at it..