Slo-Mo Looting

Page 4 of 11  


civilized
justice
Well I think that the penalty in this case was harsh also. I also do not believe that the security guards intended to kill the thief. But. he was totally in the wrong and should not have been in this situation to start with. He was totally responsible for what happened. He had no one else to blame but him self. This guy could have easily have pulled a gun and shot at the security guards. IMHO if you are chasing a thief you have to assume that he may try to do you harm to keep from getting caught.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What if the guards were mistaken????
Leon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, then if they broke the law they would have to be handled accordingly. What if the guy simply cooperated? He would probably still be alive. One must always take responsibility for his own life and sometimes common sense shoud over rule pride to keep you out of trouble.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Schmall wrote:

Hmm. "Different cultures" might be considerably closer to the truth than "less civilized". I lived in one such country long enough to wonder what had happened to civilization when I returned to the USA.
How long has it been since you last felt it safe to leave the keys in your car (for a year at a time) or to not lock your home when you went out?
FWIW loss of a hand resulted /only/ from a trial process in which fairness and justice were of equal importance with law; and which was tempered with mercy, compassion, and wisdom (required qualities for judging such matters) - which meant that a lesser punishment was chosen whenever possible.
I've been fascinated that those people considered incarceration uncivilized. Interesting thought, no?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very interesting, and I stand corrected. "Different cultures" is better phraseology. We are the only WEstern country with the death penalty, so referring to other culturess as less civilized is ridiculous.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Schmall wrote:

This is realism. He stole. He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended, he resisted, and thus risked application of force. When force is applied then death is a possible outcome. He took the chance, what happened after that was on his head.
It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the act into "vigilante justice".
If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".
Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die". You are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension with penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and gets hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their problem. Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy "knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various things) that he was dealing with rent-a-cops. Maybe it didn't occur to him that lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than inability to overpower him.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Or so you think. It'd be nice to ask him his version, but, unfortunately, he's dead.
Now contrast that with Leon walking out of the store with some tools on accident. The guard follows. He mistakes that nice try square for a gun and pops him with his six-shooter. Is this a proper outcome?
Remember, Leon has been caught red-handed, and therefore it's "on his head."
G
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

head."
Yes it is proper out come. But uh I walked out with a T-shirt from a tourist shop. The T-shirt may not be mistaken for a gun. Then again I would drop what ever I was holding and not give some one a reason to take the situation farther. In other words, I would not resist restraint.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"

no, that would be murder.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

of course, the "defendant," especially a gang member, might find the security personell and off him. That seems more likely.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

died.
training
stealing
not
As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?
He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,

that was on his head.
Nope. What was on his head what the suspected commission of a crime. Since when do people suspected of a crime lose their right to live?

act
It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.

You
with
gets
Nope--it's giving carte blanche to the person apprehending them to use deadly force. And don't think I'm favoring the perp. If he is judged to be a thief, then he deserves the punishment--but not until then.
Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy

So he should ask about store security before committing the crime? "Pardon me, may I see the manager about what could happen if I steal something?"
Maybe it didn't occur to him that

Talk about "liberals" letting people off. So lack of training gets the guard off the hook? "Excuse me, sir. You, the one under my knee. Are you aware that I have not been trained in proper restraint techniques? Not that it matters to me." If he wasn't properly trained, why did he use the maneuver?
The only thing the perp should have known was that stealing is wrong.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Schmall wrote:

He through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it got to trial.

It is not a matter of "right to live". If the guards had gone after him with heavy machine guns or something you might have a reasonable point, but they did not, they caught him, held him down, and he managed to die while they were doing it. This comes under the heading of "shit happens".

I have a high regard for the "rule of law". The "rule of law" does not require that when one catches a criminal in the act on one's own property one must let him walk away.

Nope. If the guards had shot him 40 times I'd be upset about it. They basically held him down and sat on him. I'm not at all upset about them doing that.
Suppose the guard had just said "excuse me sir" and the suspect had then dropped dead of a heart attack, would you be this irate then?

Actually you are. If he knows he can walk away and stay a free man as long as the police, who are grossly overworked already, don't find him, that favors him.

What punishment? Being sat on?

That would come under the general heading of "reasonable prudence" for a criminal. If he doesn't find out what he's up against first then he is not only a "criminal", he's a "stupid criminal".

Why would one have to ask that to determine that the guards are rent-a-cops and not real cops? All one has to do is look at the insignia on their uniforms.

No. Lack of _intent_ lets the guard off the hook. The guy died because the guard didn't know that doing what he did was likely to kill someone, not because the guard wanted him dead.

If the guard had the suspect under his knee then the information will do the suspect no good. The suspect should have surrendered before matters got to that point.

He used it because he wasn't properly trained. If he had been properly trained then he would have done something else less likely to kill the suspect.

Your opinion. The law deals in the actions of the "reasonable man". The "reasonable man" who is going to commit a crime will want to know a lot more than that.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, but it does specify the application of appropriate force. The definition of appropriate force is quite specific and certainly doesn't allow for deadly force, accidental or otherwise as a means of preventing petty theft. EXCESSIVE FORCE - A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.
Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.
Do you think a reasonable and prudent officer would allow a SUSPECT to die to prevent petty theft?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Secret Squirrel wrote:

Define "deadly force".

Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would have been no suspect ot apprehend. Leaving that aside, depends. Should a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that kneeling on someone's chest will kill them? Should a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of someone on whom he is kneeling? Should a person who not a "law enforcement officer" be judged by the standards of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" or by the standard of behavior for a "reasonable and prudent civilian"?
In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that the guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that their action was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

deadly force : the degree of force that might result in the death of the person the force is applied against.

If caught in the act and apprehended the theft has been prevented and yet there is still a suspect.
Leaving that aside, depends. Should a

Clearly
Should a "reasonable and

If he appears to be in distress, again clearly
Should a person who not a "law

I'd guess anyone over the age of 5 can recognize when someone is unable to breath. Recognizing that you're causing that distress by kneeling on his chest certainly seenms reasonable to me. Removing that knee certainly seems prudent.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Secret Squirrel wrote:

Now define it so that the "reasonable man" can tell if he's using it.

Weasel words.

I see. And on what basis should be be aware of this?

And if he has been struggling right along how does the officer determine whether the suspect is "in distress" or simply still trying to get away?

So what are the signs of being "unable to breathe while being knelt on by security guards"?

It's always easy for some guy sitting in an easy chair a thousand miles away to tell a guy who was there in the fight what he should have done. What you're doing is insisting that someone be jailed on the basis of your own Monday-morning quarterbacking.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't imagine this being any more clear.

You made this an argument of semantics. I simply clarified your faulty logic.

Well, since it seems to be a common theme here, how about a little common sense? Failing that, law enforcement officers are subject to a signifigant amount of training. Proper restraint techniques are certainly part of this.

Gasping for air, convulsing and attempting to flee are hardly the same thing.

You're joking right?

I never insisted that anyone be jailed, perhaps you should have read the entire thread. I was simply pointing out the numerous inconsistencies and fallacies in the OP's statement.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(snip)
not
to
applied
Since
but
Wonderful. "He managed to die" and "Shit happens." Try this defense in a court of law anywhere, with any judge and any jury. The accused does not lose his rights upon apprehension. The UNALIENABLE rights cited in the Declaration of Independence include the right to life. "Unalienable" means that they cannot be revoked or disowned.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Schmall wrote:

(a) The Declaration of Independence has no force in law. (b) Apparently something akin to that defense was accepted by the court in the extant case.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What ever happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime? And who made the rent-a-cops the judge? I am all for damn strict laws to suppress crime, but this is taking it too far. It would be akin to being pistol whipped by a cop for speeding. Just my opinion....
Leon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.