walmart security

[JAUQO III-X]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Depends how technical you want to get, you need to impart a force to actually pick something up . . .

There is a lot of claims in the article about the suspect fighting back after being taken to ground, but they are quite clearly listed as claims, not solid. Not that it makes much of a difference, nor calls for a death penalty in either situation.

It's a possibility that he was only trying to defend himself after he realized that he himself was in harms way.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by Eric Perry

So if a crook is wrongfully detained he should be able to sue?

Any store personnel, at any time, can gladly stop me and search me for stolen goods. Doesn't bother me. Because I don't steal sh*t! If anything, It tells me they are doing their job. Good for them! Actually earning a paycheck rather than stealing some Blu-Ray players!

I was once searched in my late teens for shoplifting by an overzealous shop owner who just didn't like the way I looked. I've shoplifted once in my life...when I was like five. Before you say, "Maybe I was acting suspicious," I talked to a number of other people I knew in town and they were, low and behold, falsely accused of shoplifting in that store too.

Trust me, it bothered me! I had a few choice words to say to the owner that day. Personally, I don't like being accused of being a thief when I'm not one. YMMV

[macaroni tony]

Ugh. Don't get me started. Happened to me a few times, between the ages of 9 and 12

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

When something happens, more than one person can be at fault.

They (Wallmart) certainly could have contributed indirectly to the situation. What are the responsibilities of the guards and associates when it comes to confronting alleged thiefs? Are they told they can handle them, or are they told not to make physical contact? If they are allowed to handle them, to what extent?

What policies and training do they have and did the members of staff follow such policies and have required training?

I doubt it, most larger retailers forbid any employees from using any level of physical force to stop shoplifters. In fact Walmart recently fired a group of employees who subdued an armed man in a store who (by his own admission) intended to engage in a mass killing.

The fact of the matter is this, from experience, I can guarantee you that the employees involved were told repeatedly in orientation, training, and in the employee manuals not to take the action they took. And yet Walmart will pay dearly for this employee action and pass on the costs to its customers.

Make no mistake about it; there was a violation of company policy by not breaking off contact with the gunman. It is rare when a shoplifter or troublemaker coming to the attention of store security is armed, but it does happen. My experience tells me that in most instances security personnel will back off when confronted with a weapon, which is what they should normally do, but the situation described by those involved in the latest incident indicates that a much more serious situation was likely averted by their actions. Their reward from Wal-Mart: losing their job.

The company has become so concerned about being sued that it has lost all degree of common sense. It makes no exceptions for situations in which security officers legally and properly confront thieves, are pushed or otherwise assaulted or have recovered stolen merchandise. Under Wal-Mart policy, they must back away and allow the shoplifter to freely walk out the door, get into a vehicle and drive away. This is absurd, especially in Kansas, where state law gives merchants considerable latitude in dealing with those caught stealing or otherwise disturbing store business.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2681652/posts

[JAUQO III-X]

Originally Posted by burk48237

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2681652/posts

Thank you Steve.

[JAUQO III-X]

The company that security guard Jaiviere Pruitt worked for has already cut ties with him.


Pruitt was the one who placed the victim,
Vidal Cornelius Calloway in a choke hold and told him to tap when he can't breathe.

[Jeff K]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

It's a possibility that he was only trying to defend himself after he realized that he himself was in harms way.

This is very true. If a man suddenly finds himself having difficulty breathing, he starts to panic and survival mode kicks in. By trying to break the hold, the other people interpret it as "resistance", when actually it was simply trying to survive.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by burk48237

And yet Walmart will pay dearly for this employee action and pass on the costs to its customers.

Heaven forbid they pass the costs to the Walton family.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by fdeck

Heaven forbid they pass the costs to the Walton family.

don't worry...they won't

they'll do what all businesses do and pass the cost right along to the consumer.

[bolophonic]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

let me get this straight...

are you saying that Wal-mart intended the guy to die?

are you saying the security guard intended the guy to die?

because what i see is a tragic accident...maybe brought on by the security guard's over reaction...but an accident nonetheless.

the guy stole on purpose and then tried, apparently, to make a getaway.

wal-mart did not do anything on purpose...or am i wrong?

I think you might have me confused with someone else in this discussion, because I haven't made any statements to the effect that Walmart or the security guard intended for anyone to die.

On the other hand, since Walmart has led the pack in actively promoting a chaotic and violent pig trough of consumerism on Black Friday, I don't see why they shouldn't be held responsible for their decision to hire a security guard who choked another man to death in their store.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by burk48237

I doubt it, most larger retailers forbid any employees from using any level of physical force to stop shoplifters. In fact Walmart recently fired a group of employees who subdued an armed man in a store who (by his own admission) intended to engage in a mass killing.

The fact of the matter is this, from experience, I can guarantee you that the employees involved were told repeatedly in orientation, training, and in the employee manuals not to take the action they took. And yet Walmart will pay dearly for this employee action and pass on the costs to its customers.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2681652/posts

As they have gone against policy and training, can Wallmart not cut ties in terms of responsibility? Will they still be held responsible even though these staff members have gone outwith their jobs like that?

[Indiana Mike]

The security company will get sued
Wal-Mart will get sued.
I doubt ,although possible ,the three actually involved in this will be sued as in reality they don't have enough assets to make it worthwhile.

they will be lucky to avoid jail time.

Wal mart will pass the buck to the security company for their employees actions . They may or may not pay anything as goes for the security company . This will take about 7 years to find out.

[macaroni tony]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

As they have gone against policy and training, can Wallmart not cut ties in terms of responsibility? Will they still be held responsible even though these staff members have gone outwith their jobs like that?

They'll have to go to court and prove that the security guards were trained properly. Will be a costly litigation, but I doubt Wal Mart will have to pay and damages

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

It's a possibility that he was only trying to defend himself after he realized that he himself was in harms way.

Somewhat irrelevant to the force issue - see being charged with "assaulting an officer" for hitting a police dog that is biting you.

[JAUQO III-X]

Originally Posted by aborgman

Somewhat irrelevant to the force issue - see being charged with "assaulting an officer" for hitting a police dog that is biting you.

I am more than familiar with what charges one can entail for hitting a police canine but if I am standing still in a none threatening manner and the dog bites me, then the game changes all around the board.

[bassbully]

The bottom line is the "choke' used was over the line. I have been in quite a few situations like this over the years in my Security days and let me tell you there is no way to prepare for how it will go down and what you will do...you react.

I have had to use a form of choke to restrain violent people before but had the knowledge to only use it quickly and then release it. To tell the person to tap is wrong this is not MMA. I feel for all those involved. The security and employees had to react and one did to much...but.

You steal you die in this case or you face whatever you bring upon yourself, jail whatever. Don't steal and he live's and this guy had a rap sheet so he has been there before. I'm not saying this guy should of died but he set up his death thru his actions ..right or wrong.

[JAUQO III-X]

Originally Posted by bassbully

The bottom line is the "choke' used was over the line. I have been in quite a few situations like this over the years in my Security days and let me tell you there is no way to prepare for how it will go down and what you will do...you react.

I have had to use a form of choke to restrain violent people before but had the knowledge to only use it quickly and then release it. To tell the person to tap is wrong this is not MMA. I feel for all those involved. The security and enployees had to react and one did to much...but. You stal you die or you face whatever you bring upon yourself,jail whatever. Don't steal and this guy had a rap sheet. I'm not saying this guy should of died but he set up his death thru his actions ..right or wrong.

The victim did not set up his actions to die at the hands of a cocky, stupid rent a cop.

Ask the security company that hired the jerk why they've severed ties with him? The basics of that is that he is now on his on, no lawyers or any one from the security company has his back for a reason.

A lot of the security people claim to be professionals and it is a known fact that a lot of them are scared of their own shadows.

I use to be in the business of dealing with police and security guards and one would be surprised at how many of them have no clue as to what to do when something really goes down. And they claim to be trained pros.

[Eric Perry]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

The victim did not set up his actions to die at the hands of a cocky, stupid rent a cop....

Right there is what's wrong with the world today. Sorry, but he's NOT a victim.

[bassbully]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

The victim did not set up his actions to die at the hands of a cocky, stupid rent a cop.

Ask the security company that hired the jerk why they've severed ties with him? The basics of that is that he is now on his on, no lawyers or any one from the security company has his back for a reason.

A lot of the security people claim to be professionals and it is a known fact that a lot of them are scared of their own shadows.

I use to be in the business of dealing with police and security guards and one would be surprised at how many of them have no clue as to what to do when something really goes down. And they claim to be trained pros.

Agree and disagree. He did set up his fate. If you choose to do a crime you face the "chances" of anything happening to you from getting away with it to, jail or in this case death. We all live by choices we make everyday. Now did he deserve to die? No, but his choices that day led to his fate.

Allot of security are poorly trained and that is the companys fault and they should be held for it. I myself always trained my guys first by saying if you cant use your voice you cant use your (fist) brawn. Speaking to people worked 90% of the time for me, many were high or drunk and it still worked and I was good at my job.
The other 10% were out to do anything to cause you or others harm and this is where the reaction/action comes in. There are times when others get you involved in confronting a suspect and before you know it you are in a real mess...been there.

Like I said I do not know why anyone would choke a person asking them to tap....wrong! The suspect by his actions did not ask to die or even thought he would but his actions put him in line for what came to him...sad to say.

[bassbully]

Originally Posted by Eric Perry

Right there is what's wrong with the world today. Sorry, but he's NOT a victim.

And I agree. We just had a teenager break into a home in our area. The homeowner was there and confronted him in his home, was threatened so he shot the kid killing him dead.

Now if the kid keeps walking by the house he is alive and all is fine.

When he broke into the mans home ..by choice... he was not a victim. The man in the house was the victim and by the teens choices that day he lost his life.
I'm sure the kid never expected by breaking in that home that day he would die..but he did...bad choice.