var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Azuaron
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

This is not the case of a receipt checker being too overzealous; these women were actually shoplifting. At that point, the security guard has the right to detain them. They definitely should've been charged with assault, at the very least.

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
DarkNinja75
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Azuaron: Citizen's arrest. Not only could the security guard legally detain them, ANY one present could have.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Raekwon
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Azuaron: When I worked as a security guard we had strict rules. We could ask someone to come with us and we could stand in people's way. We could not touch a person until they assaulted us first nor could we detain a person if they didn't want to be detained. Most people complied with our requests because we looked like police and acted like police. Those that didn't could have easily walked away.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nogard13
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jc364
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nogard13: I don't know about that... all the research I've done seems to indicate that store security DOES have the right to detain shoplifters until police arrive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nogard13: You might be wrong about that. A store security guard actually has the right to detain a shoplifter for a reasonable amount of time before the police arrive.

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]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowman615: But how much force can they legally use to accomplish this?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
What The Geek
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowman615: Actually, in many cases, the retailer is renting the store from the property owner. Think of a shopping plaza. Ever notice how the buildings, regardless of what logo is on them, have the same exterior look? That's because they're all owned by a real estate company, who then leases them to businesses. The security guard has rights, limited though they may be, inside the store, but once in the parking lot, they're no longer on property that the store is paying for - the parking lot is still the responsibility of the real estate co. Now, of course, there are stores built and owned by retailers. That's true pretty much anytime you see one that doesn't share a parking lot with anything else. In those cases, as long as the store bought the property in it's entirety, then the security guard's rights extend to the edge of that property.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@What The Geek: Although Walmart makes a point of owning their own stores. At one point Sam had a plan where old stores would be converted into Bowling Alleys and make the company more money (this was in the 70s)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LeChiffre
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nogard13: I agree. Once someone leaves the mighty doors of Wal-Mart, let them go and call the cops. I wouldn't put my life on the line for a $29.99 DVD.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PTB315
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LeChiffre:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - Fortified with Kittydus Purrularis:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kogenta
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nogard13: Depends, this is a security guard. If they were also the LPO for example, they can make an arrest once the people are outside. In fact they probably would have had to wait until the people were explicitly outside the building to make the arrest just in case the shoplifters ditched the items on the premises or actually decided to pay for them.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@What The Geek: Yes but Walmart is rarely such a store - they generally own their property and have to go through all sorts of hoops to get their stores built.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skipweasel
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: Some people pay extra for that kind of service.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
UCLAri
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While the guard certainly overstepped his boundaries, nobody deserves to get headbutted and peed on. Let's not forget in our zeal to be good consumerists that the security guard is actually a human being who... doesn't deserve to get headbutted and peed on.

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
legalguy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@UCLAri: Most of the receipt checkers and security guards are total douche bags and have allowed their perception of their authority to overcome common sense. It has been a few years but there was a case in Oregon of a receipt checker following a woman to her car and then blocking her from getting in her vehicle, continually demanding to see her receipt. She did have a receipt by the way. She refused to show the receipt. The checker decided to grab her arm. He might not have ended up in intensive care if he had known she had a concealed weapons permit and was within her rights to shoot him since she began to fear for her own safety when he started grabbing her. Outcome. She was not charged with anything. Checker was in critical care for some time and then the store was sued for unlawful detainment, assault and harassment. She won the suit. Her purchases were in a store bag and the total value was less than ten bucks! Get shot for ten dollars? What a moron.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
flugennock
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@UCLAri: D'ahh, screw 'em. I can think of a lot of people who deserve to be head-butted and pissed on these, and big-box security goons and receipt-checkers are at the top of my list -- right after those TSA assholes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@UCLAri: I came here to say this too. While the security guard probably overstepped his boundaries (I don't know all the details of what security guards can and cannot do) the women in this story are far from being victims here. There's a civil way to handle things and a completely inhuman way. They assaulted him. The guy may have done his job incorrectly but he didn't deserve to be headbutted, peed on and then kidnapped him (if I read the story right, it sounded like they drove off with him still in the car).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lukesdad
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@What The Geek: Laws on use of force by private security guards still vary widely from state to state.

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lukesdad
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: I was replying to someone else's comments and somehow (probably my bad, sorry) ended up in the next thread down. Either way, I never implied that the guy physically detained anyone. And he did not *let* them proceed to the parking lot, he tried to stop them inside the store.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@UCLAri: This is exactly what I came here to say. The only people who should have to worry about urine during the course of a normal work day should be in the medical field. And perhaps janitorial, and babysitters...Or some sex professions...but you get my point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chumas
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@UCLAri: In Taipei you pay good money to get that kind of treatment!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
UCLAri
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chumas: +1 internets for you.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LeChiffre
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@UCLAri: I received my engineering degree in Muskegon and I wonder where this store is located, but they did not have one ten years ago.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kyin
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LeChiffre: There are two in Muskegon now. One on Sherman and one on Henry. You will also be happy to know that Meijer still gets more business than Walmart in Muskegon.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kcvaliant
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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..

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
coren
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kcvaliant: They do not exactly look like women who would be easy to stop.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
el elarmist
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kcvaliant:
A security guard isn't a military-trained weapons specialist. He's just a guy who is there to watch over stuff, and is paid pennies for it. So, he actually went beyond his call of duty.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dfens42
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kcvaliant:


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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
akuma_x
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kcvaliant:There's a misprint in the article. It states two women but when I looked at the pictures it's actually two linebackers with wigs on.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
wgrune
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: Yeah, it's a felony and they were charged with it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hank Scorpio
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: For some reason I picture your second sentence being said by someone with a slightly English accent wearing a monocle and holding a snifter full of brandy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_HurtHisKnee
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio:

And where did you get the sugar for your tea?!
I nicked it when you let your guard down for that split second, and I'd do it again. That is a serious crime, is it not?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_HurtHisKnee
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio: BTW, You Only Move Twice was on the other day, and I thought of you as I watched it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hank Scorpio
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_HurtHisKnee: All I ever really wanted in life was for strangers on the internet to think of me while they watch TV. Mission accomplished.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dfens42
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio:


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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Chumas
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The shit is insured, and you're not supposed to go gung ho. I think we've seen plenty of times before where if the guard goes above and beyond bad things happen.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
greeneyedlady
November 28, 2009 9:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Exactly Chumas! which is why alot of guards end up injured, beaten and even killed. why get beat down for somethng that is INSURED AND REPLACABLE? These 'robo cops' do this crap all the time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Agent19488
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chumas: Agreed, and he's lucky he works for Wal-Mart - if he worked at Best Buy, he'd probably be out of a job.

Maybe he'll be luckier.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bloggerX
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jc364
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bloggerX: Agreed. It's generally a bad idea to chase shoplifters... it could lead to people getting hurt or worse. The stuff is insured, and the police will have a description of the shoplifter. The guards should be satisfied with that and not try to chase people down.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jc364: And shoplifters willing to do this to the security guard would be willing to hurt an innocent bystander as they flee - But they'd have no reason to attack anyone if there isn't a rent-a-cop chasing them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
JilliefromChile
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: He probably put himself in danger for store merchandise because some asshole manager expected him to. These people aren't paid much and can't afford to put their jobs in danger because of too many losses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Methinks the guard assumed, \"It's a girl.\" To his regret. Some of them dainty filles can fight!
(And the big-boned ones, BOY can some of them pee!)

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anathema777
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: \"Methinks the guard assumed, \"It's a girl.\" To his regret. Some of them dainty filles can fight!\"

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

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anathema777
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Once you're out in the parking lot, blocking someone from entering her car, maybe you deserve what you get.\"

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

That's actually pretty disgusting.

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
dantsea
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Anathema777: Actually, he did deserve what he got -- not the peeing on, but a lesson in DON'T PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE FOR CHEAP SHIT MADE IN CHINA SOLD BY A SOULLESS CORPORATION WHO WILL FIRE YOU FOR TAKING INITIATIVE.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
greeneyedlady
November 29, 2009 8:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

dantsea
November 18, 2009 4:52 PMFlag for review @Anathema777: Actually, he did deserve what he got -- not the peeing on, but a lesson in DON'T PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE FOR CHEAP SHIT MADE IN CHINA SOLD BY A SOULLESS CORPORATION WHO WILL FIRE YOU FOR TAKING INITIATIVE.

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!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Anathema777:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: +1 on all counts ... and well said: I can't think of anything to add.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JilliefromChile
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Oh hell no, you did not just compare an unlocked car to a pair of uncovered female legs. Please tell me the acceptable hem length to protect me from rapists. Rapists are bad man that are out to hurt women whose bodies they feel entitled to. Rape isn't about sexual gratification. It's about hurting.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kexline
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JilliefromChile: Hell no, he totally didn't. Good catch!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
West Coast Secessionist
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Anathema777: @Underscore_Lysdexia: @korybing: You all get hearts for being awesome and saying what I would have said, only better.

Poor guy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Anathema777: Exactly. The guy didn't do his job right but he in no way deserved to be treated the way he did. What those girls did was above and beyond cruel for a schlub who was just trying to do his already horrible job.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Underscore_Lysdexia
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Anathema777: The phrase \"Is there any sympathy out there for the zealous security guard? Or did he have it coming?\" REALLY made me think I was reading an article produced by Fox News...

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RayonFog
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Underscore_Lysdexia:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Anathema777: Agreed. If the security guard had been female and a male thief had peed on her, that would probably be considered a sexual assault and so not okay to say \"deserved\".

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The guy was just trying to do what was right, of course he didn't deserve that. When someone trying to uphold right from wrong is harmed by scum of society, of course they don't deserve it. His \"job description\" be damned.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Um, no. Not really. We really don't want unqualified law enforcement taking extra-legal action outside their legal bounds. As others posted on here, if they do that for insufficient economic reasons, it puts everyone at risk, and escalates things to dangerous levels for no reason. Retail Rent-a-cops ARE NOT police, nor should they act like they are.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Doesn't Walmart fire their people for trying to physically detain lowlife, scummy thieves?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
greeneyedlady
November 28, 2009 10:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes they do, as also home depot, 7-eleven, various banks; believe it or not; some banks have UNARMED guards! I myself would not do security for ANYONE unarmed. There is way too much going on these days. Also McDonalds and other copanies. They do not want you to play cop and get yourself hurt or killed and get them sued. This is why people get fired off of their jobs for trying to be a hero. These big corporations have mad money and insurance; why get hurt or dying for something hat is replaceable and insured.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pr0k
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar: The catch is they probably would have fired him if he had done nothing at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mommiest
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My sympathies are with the guard. Even if he wasn't in the right to stand in the way of someone entering her car, she threw the first punch by head-butting him. If she felt threatened, she had lots of other options. Calling 911, for instance. Oops, I guess shoplifters don't see that as an option.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
michigan2cv
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ecwis
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@michigan2cv:He's within his legal rights though. Anyone can detain a criminal if they witness the crime. Although, if he was unarmed and untrained, then he probably shouldn't have done this.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
716
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@michigan2cv: I LOVE that part in the first movie where Robocop just stands in the way while Boddicker tries to get in his car.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bigfoot-Angus
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Way back when, my wife actually took a job at Walmart. While there, she and a lot of other employees saw a man walk in, pick up an electric boat motor and simply walk out. Instead of trying to stop him, they simply called the other Walmarts in the area and told them to be on the lookout. Sure enough, he went to another Walmart and tried to get a refund. They called the police and he was arrested.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
squablow
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thieves are scum. There was a time where we would all congratulate a security guard or honest citizen who went out of their way to prevent theft. Now we question whether he deserved getting urinated on while going above and beyond his job. Sad.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squablow: Escalation is an unpredictable thing, especially when one of the parties is a poorly-trained minimum wage guy with delusions of grandeur and the other is an adrenaline-pumped petty thief.
Imagine he \"won\" and beat the resisting girl into the hospital: a \"victory\". Would you be celebrating? Or if she ejected him from a moving car, killing him.
That's why guards' jobs are to document and call in the guys who can do it right. And in a way that ensures easy prosecution.
Sometimes, life is more nuanced than a Steven Segal rerun.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Lol - I HATE that SS bastard. He had the \"bright idea\" in his latest movie to portray himself - a fat stupid has been showing dumb fighting tricks to hicks lol.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AirIntake
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squablow: Try to change American tort law then. That's the whole reason you can't stop criminals now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AirIntake: Oh PUHLeeze, let's not start on the \"let's get rid of all tort laws and lawyers\" bandwagon. They exist for valid reasons, go to law school and understand.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pr0k
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Your likening violent gang rape to stealing curtains and make up (a victimless crime) is really revealing about you.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pr0k
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: You're not seriously comparing a brutal gang rape to swiping a DVD, are you? Even the MPAA wouldn't go THAT far. Very often.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nbs2: Not sure about the RIAA, but definitelly the MPAA's Jack Valenti in this infamous testimony:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: He may have broke Wal-Mart policy, but getting in the way of a thief leaving the premises hardly seems like \"vigilante justice\". Vigilante justice is more like telling a couple of hooligans to get of your lawn with the assistance of your M1 assault rifle.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Wait. You mean that's NOT standard operating procedure for Texan Oldsters?!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The guard may have been overzealous, but nobody deserves that kind of humiliation. If the culprits were male and the guard female and they'd peed on her, it would have been considered sexual assault and calling it \"deserved\" would have provoked the outrage of the entire feminist community, and rightly so. Whether or not it actually was sexual wouldn't have mattered; anything where a penis is involved in a violent act gets characterized that way, so the reverse should be true as well.

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kaceetheconsumer: Agreed. I think it previous commenters on this post degrade the point of their argument by suggesting that because this man was going beyond his job description he deserved this or caused this to happen to him.
And I agree with you, if this was a woman, nobody would DARE say that. Shouldn't be any different for man. What happened to this guy is pretty awful regardless of circumstances.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: You bring up a good point: the things we're all making up in our heads about how this unfolded has a significant effect on our individual conclusions about whether or not the guard acted prudently.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I'm sure the guard too, knows he could have used a more cautious tactic. Hindsight is 20/20. Would he have done the same if he knew he was going to be head-butted, kidnapped, and peed upon? Probably not. He did what he thought was reasonable at the time, since he had probably cause to suspect them of shoplifting.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
valkyrievf2x
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What exactly is the point of having security guards then? They cant really stop you, cant hold you against your will, and if you hit the parking lot, they can do nothing. Seems like they only intimidate the \"rookie\" thieves/shoplifters. A more experienced one wouldnt even bat an eyelash.

Hope I am not oversimplifying here.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
greeneyedlady
November 28, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

valkyrievf2x you are oversimplyifing. A security guard's job is to observe and report. guards are potentional witiness to whatever crimes that may take place. Guards also serve as a deterrent to crime. guards do have alot on their plate to do but being a hero and robo cop is not one of them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@valkyrievf2x: So what if you actually gave a security guard training, not to the level of a police officer but at least more than they get now, and have them deputized. No weapons but at least the power to make an arrest and turn the thief over to the police. Would that have any attraction?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: Who'd be stupid enough to do that for Walmart wages?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@valkyrievf2x: Observe and report, baby, observe and report.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pr0k
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: You don't need to pay a security guard to do that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pr0k: Err, that's precisely what they're paid to do.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@valkyrievf2x: \"Discouragement\" is a better term than \"intimidation\", I think, but you have the idea right. Most people don't realize exactly how little power retail workers have against shoplifters. At one store that I worked at, our hands were pretty much tied when trying to apprehend someone. I could imply (\"I noticed that there's an empty hanger for a wristband over here, and I saw that you and your friends were around there awhile today. Do you know where it went?\") but even saying outright that they stole something was a big no-no. All I ever saw happen when we verified an incident was the security guard would ban them from the mall, call their parents if they were underage, and give us the merch. The 15-year-old trying to take eyeliner and nail polish likely doesn't know that, though.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
chaoss13
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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...

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chaoss13: You don't find too many shoplifters who look like Charlize Theron. Hell, you don't find too many human beings who look like Charlize Theron.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ecwis
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chaoss13: Some judges actually follow the 8th Amendment and set appropriate bail amounts. These women don't seem very wealthy so I think 50k is sufficient to guarantee their appearance in court.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
htowninsomniac
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, the security guard does not have the right to detain them. Write down the license plate and be done with it.

Still, how the women acted is a shame.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
suburbancowboy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Those women were just trying to save money, so they could live better.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Scuba Steve
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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


That being said, Assault, definitely.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pr0k
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Carrying cell phones on the clock is against company policy. He would have been fired for it. :P

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
admiral_stabbin
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seriously, folks...who runs around pissing on people?

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.?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
DoubleEcho
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes: You owe me a cran-apple juice since mine just ended up all over my monitor.

I heart you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
failurate
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@admiral_stabbin: R Kelly is actually touring the Northern Midwest right now. Milwaukee on Sunday, Chicago on Wednesday.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@failurate: But only for shoplifters under the age of fourteen.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Doesn't store policy say the guard can get fired for trying to stop shoplifters? Or maybe that's Home Depot I'm thinking of... anyway, charging the girls with shoplifting and nothing else seems appropriate to me. Whatever they did to the security guard was in self-defense.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
ecwis
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vladthepaler: Uh, you can't assault someone when they're rightfully detaining you. Any citizen has a right to make a lawful arrest (and wait for the police). Self-defense/resistance is only justified in an unlawful arrest. Also, their assault turned their 90-day misdemeanor offense into a felony.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shepd
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NatalieErin:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nate128
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: I'm trying to picture the actual act of urination. *Shudder* I mean, they're in the car, so there must not have been a lot of room. It's a woman, so she can't exactly aim her stream with precision. She must have climbed on, squatted down all-scrunched-up-like, ripped down her pants, and... ew.

Self-defense?!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Eticus
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

a comet could hit a Walmart and I would laugh just as hard as reading this article. These swine that attacked the guard send them to a sausage factory.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shaftoe
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
glevkoff
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
The Dude
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

On the question of whether they can be legally detained or not: If someone walks up to you and takes your wallet or purse, do you not have a right to forcibly try and get it back? And then hold them down while you call the police? I would think you do. And what's the difference here?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
greeneyedlady
November 29, 2009 7:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ The Dude

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
greeneyedlady
November 28, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is not a case of someone taking your stuff, these goons stole from walmart and the guard went beyond what he was supposed to do, most of these guards are unarmed but are there to deter crime. Me, if I were a guard, I would have some form of protection on me no matter what. if it isnt a taser or stun gun, I would definately have mace or something that I can use to protect myself and get to safety. I always carry protection with me. on my person and in my vehicle. If you walk up on my vehicle in attack mode and Im not able to drive off then I will go into G I jane and use whatever I have in my car and let the bad guy have it. You cant always rely on the police. So you have to take your personal safety into your own hands. No, I would not do security without having some form of protection at my fingertips. People are desperate these days, I dont carry my purse through malls, markets or parking lots. I have weapons on my person, my fully charged cellphone id and a credit card. I dress in loose fitting clothing so if I need to move and or fight. I will be dressed for it.I keep my nails about 1/3 on an inch and filed to a point. I am careful of my surroundings and on guard whenever I am alone. I also have lots of family members here where I live; at least 20 locally alone and we all keep in contact with each other daily. we always let each other know where we are going and who with and give their info to other family members. I gave my niece a mace ring, a small mace can for her keys. and a stun gun that looks like a cell phone. I also told her to keep at least two pairs of hard shoes in her vehicle and a large umbrella. these things are legal to carry in your vehicle. I also carry both a cane and a pair of crutches. Since I had broken my foot; it is medically documented about my using crutches and canes.I once had to take a dude out in a parking lot with the use of one of my crutches and mace. He attacked me without provocation and I defened myself and let his ass have it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Store policy is absolutely beside the point. Most (all?) jurisdictions have \"shopkeeper's privilege\". The specifics vary depending on jurisdiction, but, in general, a guard can do certain reasonable things to detain suspected shoplifters.

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
InThrees
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I absolutely detest receipt checking, and I never agree. I always say \"No thanks.\" and keep going. I hardly ever get asked, though, so it's not an issue.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
valueofaloonie
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@InThrees: Receipt checking has *nothing* to do with this case, so...why even bring it up?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Outrun1986
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My understanding of store security guards is that they are there to observe and report, which means if they see someone walk out with merchandise they can report it to the police and nothing more. The guard is there for deterrent purposes which, IMO is useless since most shoplifters are savvy these days and know exactly how to get past the guards and receipt checkers. Even kids know how to get past them, there are entire internet forums out there devoted to shoplifting and which locations are easy hits ... etc

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Outrun1986: >>>The only thing they can do is call loss prevention

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Outrun1986: Your last point is laughably absurd. Of COURSE children can be charged with crimes. Where'd you get that notion from?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jim Fletcher
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What an incredible deal! He got beaten up and peed on for free?! I have to pay extra for that!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
chucklebuck
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Once you're out in the parking lot, blocking someone from entering her car, maybe you deserve what you get.

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well now I'm confused. I thought we were in agreement that firing security guards for chasing bona-fide and sometimes dangerous shoplifters was wrong? Now it's wrong to chase after them because they might get hurt? These poor guards just can't catch a break.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
mianne
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Actually the points are IN agreement.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ElPresidente408
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I worked at a retailer once who had a strict policy that a shoplifter could not be approached unless:

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Underscore_Lysdexia
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Is there any sympathy out there for the zealous security guard? Or did he have it coming?\"

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

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DD_838
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The security guard was WRONG! Boo hoo he got peed on. That sucks, but what if she pulled a gun out of the glove box and shot him? It's not that far fetched either.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
RedCatLinux
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Yhe
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RedCatLinux: Kinda weird to be shoplifting with a full bladder. It's not like Walmart won't let you use the washroom unless you're a customer, either.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
VagrantRadio
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've been to that WalMart, it's a pretty scary place, more scary than normal WalMarts.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
michigan2cv
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
korybing
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@michigan2cv: He was trying to prevent the passenger from getting into the vehicle and she headbutted him into the car. I don't believe he was looking to drive off with these two.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pr0k
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@michigan2cv: Where did it say he jumped in the vehicle? He was assaulted when standing next to the vehicle, fell inside, and further assaulted.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anathema777
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@michigan2cv: He didn't jump in a vehicle! He stood in front of one of the women; she headbutted him and he fell into the vehicle.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
psknapp
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
JanDuKretijn
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a feeling Wal-Mart, though they take a corporate stand of disallowing security guards to be zealous in their attempts to stop shoplifters, the situation in-store is probably different. Guards are probably hemmed in by two different dictates - from corporate and from the store management who's breathing down their necks on a daily basis, threatening their job security if walk-offs don't decrease this month.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Duke_Newcombe sez íViva la Revolucion de Chihuahua!
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In many circumstances, what the security guard got would cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars in the finest houses of ill repute --he should be grateful...wait, what?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
WeAre138
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

At first I laughed at the idea of 2 girls rolling a male guard. The I remembered what the typical female walmart shopper looks like - linebackers!

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
masterasia
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Walmart sucks, don't ever go there to shop. There are so many ghetto people there. I'm not racist, but I hate ghetto people. Ghetto Asians, ghetto Caucasians, ghetto Hispanics, ghetto African-Americans, .....

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Darkneuro
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if the shoplifters will be charged with attempted kidnapping since they drove off with the security guard in the vehicle. It's a possibility.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
coren
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bullshit that she didn't get charged for the headbutting and whatever the hell peeing on someone is (sexual assault?). Not to mention that if he did not enter the car of his own free will and was obstructed from leaving then kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment or something along those lines sounds like it has occurred. But IANAL.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
laker
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It should be considered that many folks pay for this type of treatment.

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
sevenwhitehorses
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hellooo, they actually had stolen stuff! They did force him into a car, they did abuse him where can anyone possibly think they should not be charged with those felonies? I hope he sues them in civil court but then again they probably do not have the means to pay damages. They should be locked up for it.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
notlupus
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I love how this column is written as lol walmart security guard gets his. What isn't mentioned is that a.) the woman who attacked the guard was already on parole for bank robbery at the time and was charged as a second time habitual offender. and b.) that when police eventually caught up with the women they refused to leave the car, and where forced at gunpoint by the police.

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?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
notlupus
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@notlupus:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@notlupus:


Like their commissary allowance for cigs.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bagumpity
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This shouldn't happen to a guard stopping a shoplifter.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kbrook
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This being my hometown, I can state with certainty that there is no such thing as the Muskegon News. Or at least the the News doesn't use mlive.com. You're thinking of the Muskegon Chronicle.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
kbrook
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kbrook: Okay, that's just weird. I know it's the Chronicle on the mlive.com site, but it's not mentioned. Maybe I can get my money back for the classified ad that was supposed to run in the online edition of the Chronicle...

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
calchip
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a friend who manages a security company that provides services to a number of shopping centers. Apparently, according to him, Wal-Mart often owns or leases not only the store, but the parking area that serves this. According to my friend, part of the reason for this is so Wal-Mart has legal standing to go after people who are shoplifting but have left the store.

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If two men had done this to a female security guard, you can bet the charges would be a LOT different.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
uclajd
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Merchants have a right to detain shoplifters, and the suspects here should be charged with kidnapping.

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
NewsBunny
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

She PEED on him?


PEED on him? Jesus Christ.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
michelsondl
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I do think that the security guard made some poor decisions in chasing the women, I'm not sure if I think it's entirely his fault that he did so. Other than the obviously criminal actions of the women, I think that part of the blame for this incident falls upon the management of the store. Some of the employees that work these jobs, especially at Walmart, aren't in the greatest of financial situations, and probably really need their jobs. If they had been given instructions by mgmt. to stop shoplifters, they probably knew that it wasn't the best thing to do, but might have been in the position where they really had no choice. It's not like someone can just walk down the street and get a job elsewhere right now, and if that security guard has mouths to feed at home that depend on him, then he may be more inclined to do some questionable things at work to make sure that he can provide for his family. Honestly, unless I saw something showing that this security guard was the type of employee that takes it upon himself to cross the line like this, and has been disciplined for it before, then I think he's the victim in all this mess.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
xoforoct wishes he lived in chasm city
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow. I feel so proud of my hometown right now.

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.\"

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
flugennock
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hot damn diggety! The revolution's on!

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Phil, you bastard.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Buffet
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Beat up by bitches? There goes his dignity.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kingdom2000
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I feel bad for the security guard. Wal-Mart has demostrated that if you don't stop shoplifters...you get fired. If you do stop a shop lifter...you get fired. He \"touched\" the customer so end result is he is probably out of a job.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
r386
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

that security guard did not have it coming, he was protecting the stores assets, what the women did was in no way reasonable and they should be charged with anything they possibly can be

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
lestat730
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

She peed on him? Really? WTF!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
volcomvenom
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

that would have been a turn on for some men @lestat730:

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
volcomvenom
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What more could you ask from a woman but to give you head, then sit and piss on you?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Everyone in the wrong on this one. The one woman had a previous charge for bank robbery. The other assaulted the guard, and fled him to begin with at the store. If they were in the right, they should have calmly dialogued with him, or waited for police and settled it that way. They didn't.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As a second separate line of thought, it would be interesting to have a legal discussion about trespassing in this case. I would ordinarily think that someone getting in the way of you entering your own vehicle, or even touching the door and inside of the vehicle without permission is criminal trespass. The fact that the vehicle is on store property and the trespasser is a security guard may or may not change things, not sure, but would be interesting to hear a defense attorney weigh in on that...if a vehicle is private property - when does that classification and respective rights to defend it change legally? (Not to excuse the assault or what they did, but some might say they had a right to defend themselves at the car if they perceived they were under attack.)

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: It may vary state by state. In Colorado for instance, what the guard did wouldn't be trespass because there was no intent to commit a crime. But in Delaware, the fact he deprived owner and passengers of use qualifies as carjacking, a felony.

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
kent909
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

About a week ago there was an article about a Wal-Mart that detained a woman and separated her from her young children for supposedly shoplifting. After the police were called and it was determined that she had not shoplifted, further confirmed by no charges being filed. She was then requested by Wal-Mart to pay an inflated price for the product. So based on Wal-Marts bad behavior in that case I wish it had been a man in this case so that he could have peed in the security guards face. People need to get over this idea \"that stuff\", has any real value and needs to be protected at any cost. The security guard should have written down the license # and gone back in the store and called the police. He did not deserve what happened but he got it anyway. I fail to see the distinction.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
pot_roast
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

She grabbed his phone and prevented him from calling 911? In many places, that alone is a serious crime.

Oughta charge her with public urination too.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
greeneyedlady
November 28, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry Azuaron but unless you have power to arress, the guard does not have the right to detain anyone. Security Officer's job is to observe and report. What the guard should have done was get their plate number of the vehicle, color, make model of vehicle and full description of both suspects, call his field supervisor, the cops and compose a full incident report. The guard taking on that 'ROBO COP' mindset is what lead to his assault and no charges filed. The guard went beyond the scope and duty of a Security Guard.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
greeneyedlady
November 29, 2009 8:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

For the most part; none of those security companies give any damn about their guards. All they care about is the CONTRACT and the CLIENT. If something happens to the guard, he will simpley replaced with another body! You are not a humanfucking being to these brutes; just a body and nothing more. Im like why place yourself in danger for a hartless employer that does not give a damn about you to begin with? All I would do is observe and report and NOTHING else. Do my DAR (daily activity report) and any incident reports as shit goes down.

Reply
");