Alleged Shoplifter Dies After Struggle With Security and Staff At Georgia Walmart

In torts class, we often discuss the limitations placed on the protection of property under the common law. While many states have passed controversial Castle Doctrines or “Make My Day” laws and others have extended such privilege to use lethal force to cars or workplaces (under Make My Day Better laws), the common law does not allow people to use force calculated to cause serious bodily injury or death in defense of property. Many stores instruct employees not to use physical force with shoplifters for that reason or to try to stop armed robberies (including cases where stores have fired such heroes). It appears that a security officer is out of job after a scuffle with an alleged shoplifter caused the middle-aged suspect to have a heart attack and die outside of a Walmart.

Walmart employees and a security guard confronted the man in the store parking lot who reportedly shoplifted two DVD players. When the police arrived in Dekalb County, Georgia, they found the man was unresponsive and bleeding from the nose and mouth.

One of the employees had reportedly placed the man in a choke hold.

Walmart appears to have fired the security officer and put two employees on paid leave. Dianna Gee, a Walmart spokeswoman, said “[n]o amount of merchandise is worth someone’s life. Associates are trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at risk.”

That is the view of the common law. However, the common law allows one to grab someone stealing property and try to retrieve it. If the person then resists, the case can change from defense of property to defense of self. Self-defense and defense of others have far greater ranges in the level of permissible violence. Indeed, you can use lethal force if you reasonably fear for your life. In this case, the employees could argue that they use commensurate levels of force not in the protection of property but in the protection of themselves or others.

With the level of violence or insanity during Black Friday sales, it is surprising that more such incidents do not occur. However, it is usually the customer-on-customer violence that makes the annual event so repulsive for many citizens.

It will be interesting to see if the man’s family sues despite the report that he was found with the stolen items. For Walmart, the cost of such litigation is too costly in comparison to the merchandise. This is why “strike suits” are so successful where companies settle for a few thousand dollars rather than incur litigation costs. Walmart would prefer to avoid such costs even in the face of blatant shoplifting as a cost of doing business.

Source: NBC

79 thoughts on “Alleged Shoplifter Dies After Struggle With Security and Staff At Georgia Walmart

  1. I don’t know if a mans life is worth just a couple of grand….


    Since when does a choke hold cause one to bleed from the nose and mouth….

  2. AY – When it is administered by an untrained cop wannabe with no idea what the hell he is doing while he runs an image of Van Damme movies through his head.

    Even for trained police officers choke holds are not recommended.

  3. Someone at the funeral home will steal his ring and watch just before the bury the casket. Turnabout is fair play. Once a thief always a thief. It must have been some good choke hold. By the way, DVDs are not worth stealing.
    It was probably some Pat Robertson tract in DVD.

  4. I think that using that minimal amount of force is not grounds for a suit. If they had strangled him to death, that would be different obviously. If one gets into a fist fight and one of the persons has a heart attack, will that make his opponent a murderer? I hardly think so. If this guy had been in a wheelchair, or on oxygen, then a suit might have merit, but absent any outward sign of disability, and his fighting back, this is a California type suit that might win there, but will not impress most jurors in GA. They have more common sense.

  5. You’ll notice that Jesus didn’t kill some guy swiping a few shekels from the money changers in the Temple.

    And of course it goes without saying that someone stealing a couple of hundred dollars worth of consumer electronics from a multi-billion dollar corporation insured against such losses needs to die for his transgression at the hands of a minimum wage cop wannabe employed by said multi-billion dollar corporation.

    “Since when does a choke hold cause one to bleed from the nose and mouth…”

    They don’t when properly administered. However, they do require some training and skill to use and they are not for use against any but an intractable opponent intent on harming you, not some guy trying to get away with stolen goods. But as Frankly points to, a choke hold is inherently dangerous and not the first line of action in constraint, but rather a last option. I know this from experience. I had to use one on a knife wielding assailant one time after disarming them and even though trained and well practiced on the move, once the person went limp my immediate response was to check their vitals to make sure I had not accidentally killed them. And I know what I’m doing from years of training. They were fine, but it was a situation where the person simply would not stop attacking even once disarmed because they were not in their right mind. It was not my first choice but rather my last choice in course of action. A choke hold is not a toy and I find it very frustrating about “professional wrestling” that they regularly mimic doing things to one another in the ring that would kill someone in real life and I suspect our erstwhile superhero in this case did indeed pick up this idea from watching “rassslin'” where it is regularly depicted as no big deal and a dramatic way to end a match. Far from being a toy, a choke hold is a potentially lethal martial arts technique when misapplied as this case illustrated. The neck is one of the most vulnerable if not the most vulnerable area on the body. By the reference to blood, I’d be interested in hearing what the autopsy has to say. It sounds like there may have been damage to the trachea and/or esophagus and possibly the hyoid bone which is indicative of a choking rather than a “choke hold”. A choke hold when properly administered applies no pressure on the trachea or esophagus but rather to the carotid artery and the jugular vein on the sides of the neck briefly depriving the brain of oxygen and causing unconsciousness. “Choke hold” is a bit of a misnomer.

  6. Gene, I did work for a law firm that handled Walmart civil litigation cases. They are self insured up to varying amounts[6 figure and more]. So, the “insurance will cover it” doesn’t apply here. I am not saying in anyway what happened here is’s not. It’s a minor point but one that should be understood. Please don’t go into a rant, it’s minor.

  7. To expand on Gene’s comment. If the person administering the choke hold accidentally grabs the wrong person, they may find themselves on the kidney transplant list, or worse.

  8. Self insured means they receive no compensation as they would if they were insured. It’s an uncompensated loss. Again, it’s a MINOR point.

  9. True, OS. It’s really not like they show on professional wrestling at all. Standing directly behind someone while they flail about uselessly? Most of those guys would catch a flurry of elbows to the kidneys and have some broken toes for their efforts against a skilled attacker. Probably flipped too. Grabbing someone trained from behind is a trickier proposition than most would think. Unless you grapple the body with the legs from behind, the choke hold attack – like any attack – creates openings for counter attacks. Even then, they could still do damage to your legs and forearms. I got some nasty scratches on my forearms for my efforts although the knife wielding psycho was left without a mark. Better that than being stabbed though.

  10. nick,

    Apparently you don’t understand what self-insured means in the context of a multi-billion dollar corporation. Self-insurance works just like purchased insurance as a risk management method in which a calculated amount of money is set aside to compensate for the potential future loss. If self-insurance is approached as a serious risk management technique like it is in a venture like Wal-Mart, money is set aside using actuarial and insurance information and the law of large numbers so that the amount set aside (much like an insurance premium) is enough to cover the future uncertain loss. So they were compensated for their loss, albeit from a self-created risk pool. The savings to the company for doing it this way is primarily related to administrative costs and profits paid for when using commercially purchased insurance.

    Now don’t go off on a rant simply because you are wrong again.

  11. Wow! It’s all theory all the time from a man w/ no experience. You do realize that “insurance will pay for it” is a moron’s view. Because, no..YOU will pay for it w/ higher premiums. If me admitting that self insured Walmart gets compensated WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, then you win. Wow!!! And, ala insurance, you will pay for any shoplifting loss w/ higher prices. The consumer always takes it in the ass from corporate America, lets agree on that and move on for chrissakes.

  12. “…although the knife wielding psycho was left without a mark. Better that than being stabbed though.”


    Gene, no external marks, but you neglected to mention possible internal injuries–or organ failure.:mrgreen:

  13. The best way to avoid this Wal-Mart black friday hunger games is to refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. The alleged perp died while in the custody and control of Wal-Mart employees or independent contractors retained by Wal-Mart. What he did or didn’t steal is irrelevant once they restrained him. Don’t they have a duty to safely restrain him while waiting for the police to arrive?

  14. Is bleeding from the nose and mouth consistent with a heart attack? If not, it was probably directly due to excessive force. Walmart should pay.

  15. Tsk, tsk tsk.

    Resorting to the ol’ ad hominem again I see. You really have a problem when people don’t take what you say as gospel. You keep displaying your ignorance and hiding behind pitifully weak ad hominem, nick. I don’t mind. Really. I thought you’d learned that lesson already though. Apparently not. I think your little fits when proven wrong are funny. Anything that makes you look more like a jackass devoid of cogent argument makes me giggle.

    But back to the argument proper, SFB.

    And what do you think is indemnifying your losses on commercial insurance policies, big man? Who pays for that, eh?

    You do.

    It’s your own damn money and that of others who paid into the risk pool (minus administrative costs and profits for the third party insurer). A shared risk pool and a private risk pool work the same way the only difference is one has risk distributed across many contributors to the pool where the only risk in a private pool goes to those who pay for it: just like a regular risk pool but with one (or a few) participants. In other words, the only difference between a commercial risk pool and a private risk pool is distribution of risk – indemnification still happens and the losses are not out of pocket. They are compensated for their loss. That Wal-Mart can afford to finance their own risk pool does not negate the insurance effect of self-insurance. Their losses were covered.

    Now come on and try to insult me again, monkey boy.

    I could use another chuckle at your expense.

    Or here’s an idea . . . you could try to prove that my description of how self-insurance works is wrong.

    Good luck with that.



    I didn’t mention it because heartbreak and disappointment are not covered by healthcare insurance.😀

  16. rafflaw, You’re correct. I’m pretty familiar w/ both Walmart and Target loss prevention. Target has a well trained staff and a surveillance system that is state of the art. Local and Federal police often take video of crimes in the community that is unclear to Target. As a jesture of good will, they have their experts work on the video for free. It’s great pr so cops are more responsive when Target needs them… win/win. The system was set up by a retired FBI guy and the training for staff is rigid. Walmart was more of a hodge podge loss prevention from my dealings. That was more than 6-7 years ago. I would say maybe they improved by not vis a vis this disaster.

  17. nick spinwelli:

    yep and we pay their taxes too. which seems to be lost on most people.

    If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times, “individuals pay taxes, not corporations.”

  18. nick,

    I agreed that you don’t know what you’re talking about vis a vis indemnification and loss.

    There was no loss to Wal-Mart here on the DVD players even if the alleged perp got away with them. That they are self-insured is irrelevant to the fact that they are insured. Your display of not understanding how risk pools operate was truly impressive though.

  19. The victim was found with the DVDS. Well of course he was! Do you really think these over reacting Clint Eastwoods wouldn’t make sure that happened. I think there is a lot more to this story and I hope the man’s family sues. I don’t believe a word of what Walmart says. Not for a minute.

  20. Bron, Amen! The way people think that, “insurance will pay it, “Tax corporations,” “We’re getting Fed tax dollars for our state” makes me wonder if people understand how the world works.

  21. nick:

    isnt self insurance where I charge my customers a little more for each item which I then deposit the little extra in my self insured account. After several million transactions and a good financial adviser, my account is worth several hundred million dollars and I am self insured against most loss.

    Isnt that how it works?

  22. There are not enough facts here for me to make a judgement.

    What Gene said about the choke hold. Unless there was a need for deadly force no chokehold is reasonable. I don’t know if that was the case here.

    If the defendant died as a result of his resisting a lawful arrest, that is only if the force was reasonable, ( I don’t know if it was in this case) I would agree with the another commenter it was an assumption of risk on behalf of the shoplifter for stealing the item and fighting with the store employees.

  23. You two really don’t understand how risk management, insurance, accounting and income taxes actually work on a large scale.

    It’s kind of cute.

  24. ” security officer is out of job after a scuffle with an alleged shoplifter caused the middle-aged suspect to have a heart attack and die outside of a Walmart.”
    The shoplifting is alleged but the heart attack was definitely caused by the guard?
    Because one thing followed another, we do not know the time frame or sequence of events between the scuffle and the heart attack, how long did it take for the police to arrive(?), or why he was blooding from the nose and mouth, does not mean one was the cause of the other.
    Too quick to rush to judgement: the officer is guilty but the suspect only alleged.

  25. Bron, I would love to play 3 card monty and the shell game w/ these rubes who believe “insurance will pay,” etc. Unfortunately, the biggest omnipotent, macro rube has no cash, just bravado since he lost his job @ Radio Shack. I don’t know if it’s more pathological or sad? I think the former. Let’s watch him’s vodka hour. It should be good.

  26. How about we watch the not very bright unemployed vodka soused detective who mooches off his wife try to get a rise out of someone who thinks his every efforts to do so are really funny instead? What’s the matter, sweetums? No cogent counterargument to offer yet again so you choose to lie about someone you don’t know anything about?

    What’s really sad is watching you try to score points in an argument by lamenting a business practice you don’t even understand that’s irrelevant to the main point of the article: namely that someone died for alleged shoplifting, shoplifting that would not have impacted the store’s bottom line or the bottom line of the greater corporation had they simply been let go.

    “Walmart appears to have fired the security officer and put two employees on paid leave. Dianna Gee, a Walmart spokeswoman, said ‘[n]o amount of merchandise is worth someone’s life. Associates are trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at risk.”

    Why do you suppose that is? It couldn’t be potential litigation costs and the fact that they are indemnified from shoplifting loses due to proper risk management shaped that policy, now could it? It couldn’t possibly be that others know what they are doing when the nick hasn’t approved of it!

    Oh noes.

  27. Gene, I had a successful career and retired a few years after my wife. I have a fulfilling life w/ a loving wife, children, friends and a wealth of experiences. I volunteer, helping my community as I have since I was a Vista volunteer coming out of college. I am retired comfortably and spend winters in San Diego. I’m not wealthy..I’m comfortable. You’re an unsuccessful, underachieving, angry man w/ this being your only life. When you go off on minor sidebar issues like this more and more people see it. Too bad you don’t.

    If anyone reads my comments, I implored you to not let this minor point sidetrack this thread. I know you, and tried to prevent your freight train from derailing. I gave you a “win” in an attempt to stop your pathological rant @ always being right. Seek out a good shrink.

  28. Gene H:

    “You two really don’t understand how risk management, insurance, accounting and income taxes actually work on a large scale.”

    I dont know about Nick, but I am just a small businessman so I have no idea how Wal Mart or any large corporation does those things. I imagine they are similar to how I do it because of the principles involved but I would expect there to be differences. A debit is a debit and a credit is a credit whether or not it is Wal Mart or Big Adolfs Bargain Mart.

    A beam can be 100′ long and 10′ deep or 10′ long and 10″ deep, the calculations are the same with a couple of added steps for the deeper beam.

    So why dont you tell me how it is done by the big companies? I would be interested in learning.

  29. Apparently you missed the point where I’m not obligated to do what you say and the numerous times I’ve stated when you give insult, you’ll get it back. And once again, you know absolutely nothing about me so your opinion on my success in life is irrelevant yet you feel free to keep bringing it up whenever you can’t win an argument based on facts, logic and evidence. One has to ask why is that?

    Now prove what I said was wrong if you can. Obviously you can’t. Hence your resorting to attacking me personally. If you could, you would have.

    You’re intimidated by anyone smarter than you and you lash out like a child when someone takes your statements to task on a factual basis so you resort to the only tactic your small mind can come up with: ad hominem. Even if I was the failure you’d like to believe I am (and I’m not)? It wouldn’t impact the validity and veracity of my arguments one bit. That’s why ad hominem has only very limited valid application in argumentation: unless the veracity of the claimant is the sole representation as to the veracity of a claim, i.e. there is no other evidence to the truthfulness of an assertion other than the claimants word, the character of the claimant is irrelevant. The arguments are the arguments.

    So if you don’t like being corrected? Stop being wrong. If you don’t like losing an argument? Don’t start ones you cannot win or learn to argue better.

    When one logically examines your tactics, the only thing you actually prove time and again is that you can’t argue for shit, you aren’t very smart and you think being nasty can bluster you through that around these parts. Too bad for you it can’t. But it sure says a lot about you though. However, you’re the one who started the pissing match right here..

    If what I said before was too complicated for you to understand, I’ll say it again: You get from me what you give. I’m a mirror. I’m that way on purpose. Ask your buddy Bron if you doubt this. He, unlike you, was able to learn the futility of your limited tactical repertoire. You can’t hurt my feelings. You can’t harm me in any way with your insults – founded or unfounded. You can, however, get some back for your efforts, dullard. Or am I being too rough on the tough guy?

    If that presents a problem for you, it’s entirely your problem.

    Now . . .

    If you can prove what I said was wrong as a factual matter in re insurance, you feel free to try.

    Otherwise? I argue for sport, sport.

    You’re just a source of amusement for me.

  30. I’m a bit tired of scrolling past the duelers, but I’ll point out one thing that I’ve noticed. nick tends to use “I” statements. Gene tends to use “you” statements. “I” statements tend toward to nonviolent communications while “you” statements tend toward violent communications.

  31. Bron,

    Insuring such losses as shoplifting presents a large company with a way to bolster their bottom line on their year end P/E statements by zeroing out the loss in terms of reporting profits. Although it costs them up front like any insurance to be able to write those off as insured, it’s strictly an accounting measure to give them the best income statement possible when dealing with a systemic loss like shoplifting. This is even more important in a publicly traded company like Wal-Mart. It plays to their bottom line which plays to their stock price which in turn plays to company valuation and dividends (if any).

    In a small non-traded company it’s less important unless the risk you are insuring against is something that could ruin the company by depleting profits or delving into surplus for a given year. For example, a small company must weight the cost of insurance against the likelihood of incurring a risk associated cost when deciding what to insure. If stock loss is an issue that could severely impact profits or surplus? You may want to insure your inventory, which is what Wal-Mart does by self-insuring for losses like shoplifting. And the choice to self-insure is probably one of simple economics; they can afford to build a risk pool of sufficient size to cover any associated costs so it makes sense to avoid paying a premium to a commercial insurer which has administrative costs and profits built in to the premium costs. They probably do the same for warehouse inventory, but they may use a combination of self-insurance and commercial insurance depending upon how much they warehouse. They may not be able to self-insure to the point to cover those losses, but in Wal-Mart’s place, they probably can.

    If you’re not in a retail or stock oriented business? Say you’re a company that doesn’t produce a tangible product but rather provides a service and has a limited or rapidly fungible inventory? Say like a cleaning service. You may want to insure your machinery instead and just assume the risk of loss of your minimal inventory from profits and surplus. However, as a small business, the assumption of risk carries not so much a hazard to valuation for trading as it does for posing a danger to cash flow for operations. Wal-Mart isn’t worried about cash flow on day to day operations as a general rule. Bob’s Office Cleaning Service is worried about it. A fire destroying his wet-dry vacs could put him out of business if he doesn’t have the profits or surplus to replace them and keep his cash flow going. Same goes for a smaller inventory oriented business. Sam’s Custom Radiators may be able to absorb losing a couple of radiators, but if he lost enough of his stock to not be able to fulfill his outstanding orders? He’s toast if the replacement costs outpace profits and/or exhaust any surplus.

    The function of insurance at its basest serves the same function in both small and large businesses (indemnification), but there is the value add of improving your financials for a given period if you are traded. With proper risk management, a large company can suffer a loss that would kill a smaller company while maintaining their value (which is very important to the board and the investors) and they can improve their financials though mitigation like insurance to indemnify for a loss they would in actuality be able to absorb if forced to simply because of their size.

  32. bettykath,

    No one forces you to read anything. If you think nick gets to say whatever he likes about me without consequence though, you’d simply be mistaken. I’ll defend slurs against me how I see fit.

  33. Really. Then how does one address another other than using “you”?

    Please educate us all on how that works grammatically.

    you /juː/, pronoun [second person singular or plural]

    1: used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing: used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class: used in exclamations to address one or more people:
    2: used to refer to any person in general:

  34. The choke hold is inappropriate in the shopping context.


    Anybody who doesn’t know that should not be dressed in the mantle of authority for any organization in the world.

    I thought we covered that in Portland, Oregon 20 years ago. NO NO NO BAD GUARD BAD GUARD. Ooops, respondeat superior: BAD STORE BAD STORE.

  35. “Ooops, respondeat superior”

    That pesky agency relationship.😀 I’m a bit surprised the more corporatist element hasn’t tried harder to do away with that too, Malisha.

  36. Gene,


    No one forces you to read anything. If you think nick gets to say whatever he likes about me without consequence though, you’d simply be mistaken. I’ll defend slurs against me how I see fit.

    Really. Then how does one address another other than using “you”?

    How about:

    I interpret nicks remarks as slurs and I’ll defend myself against them as I see fit.

    The other statements make me feel defensive and it assumes something about my thinking. I hope that wasn’t your intent, but that is how I read it.

  37. Bettykath,

    I suggest the problem is with your reading, specifically inference. Just because someone addresses you directly is no need to be defensive. Nothing was assumed about your thinking and my remarks were directed at your remarks. If I am unclear on what you are trying to say, I’m the kind of person that will ask for a clarification. As your remarks seemed straightforward, no clarification was necessary unless you didn’t say what you meant to say or thought you said or in some way did not convey what you intended by accident. You said you didn’t like reading the dueling so I responded that no one was forcing you read anything – which is true. The choice of what you read is yours. The second line is a conditional statement, predicated by the word “if”. If you do think I have the right to defend myself from slurs then it does not apply. If you don’t think I have the right to defend myself from slurs, then it does apply. No inference about your thoughts were made other than to present the two choices the situation presented albeit one tacitly implied.

    I’m going to ask you a question and I’m not asking it to be mean, but I’m genuinely curious. Did you have a problem reading as a child? I ask because I have a cousin who has a similar issue as yours with the written word and he suffered terribly from a reading disability as a child. There is no shame in such things. He doesn’t have a problem with verbal communication, but the written word still sometimes elicits unintended responses from him. Otherwise, he’s a pretty average guy. An innocuous spoken comment to him he’d have no problem with he’ll often interpret as an insult or being about something else if he reads it. He has some other issues too, but that happens quite frequently for him. So frequently in fact that his parents will not leave him notes or send him email (which he finds difficult to deal with anyway), opting to speak with him on the phone or in person instead. Like I said, I’m not trying to be mean, just understand why the pronoun you seems to cause distress. Not all people read as well or the same as others. Symbolic language has many drawbacks. Some people cannot deal well without the cues of body language and tone of voice . . . just like my cousin. I ask this because this is the second time you and I have encountered this particular issue and I’m a bit of a language geek. No insult is intended. If you think I’m improperly interpreting your remarks, just clarify. People misspeak and clarify themselves all the time. If you think I’m making an assumption about how you think, just ask me. However, usually I do preface an assumption with something like “I assume you mean blah blah blah.” or “Your assumption is/seems to be blah blah blah.”

    My remarks were directly addressing your remarks.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

  38. I too think WalMart is out of control, but not in the matter of shoplifting. I stay out of their stores as much as possible for a host of reasons. My only concern is what is a store or person to do when a crook takes your property illegally? From all the comments I have seen, it seems like the ONLY concern is for the welfare of the crook to be safe in his crime. If the store security did wrong in trying to fight this guy, what should they have done instead? Just let him go with the items? This tactic will simply tell others that if you are caught stealing, all you have to do is to put up a fight, and they will let you get away with the items. That works for guys like me at 6’5″ and 240# since there are few folks who can stop me So the little guy will just have to be caught. I guess, but then if he puts up a big enough fight, he too can be immune and make crime pay.

    In Texas though, such action will be very hazardous to the crooks health since there are a lot of folks who are armed. They CAN legally shoot the crook if he does not drop the loot. So if you wish to steal in Texas, you have to accept the risk, you may DIE because of your theft. I can say that since I do not have a CHL, but I do have a number of guns, if somebody steals my stuff or my neighbors and I can shoot them, I will..It is THEIR choice if they wish to take that risk.

  39. raff/OS,

    Were I the plaintiff’s attorney in this case, I’d try to use the other episodes of death or injury to establish a pattern of negligence in Wal-Mart’s actions pertaining to their loss prevention policies. They shouldn’t be authorizing the use of force at all. Back in the day when I worked retail, every place I worked had a document and report policy: note what you saw and then call the cops as soon as the perp left the store and leave the rest to them.

  40. I think you are right Gene. When I worked in banks, they always stressed to the tellers and the staff to not try to stop a robber, but to do exactly what they ask for, but try to be observant. For a store to decide who should be held for the police is stupid as the Wal Mart episodes are evidence of. It reminds me of the Rolling Stones using the the Hells Angels as security at an outdoor concert.(Altamount?) It didn’t end well.

  41. I guess that the armed guards in banks are just for show then, and they only have ONE bullet in their shirt pocket like Barney Fife. Of course, one does not want a shoot out in a bank, but after the SOB leaves, he can be fair game.

  42. Gene,

    “I’m going to ask you a question and I’m not asking it to be mean, but I’m genuinely curious. Did you have a problem reading as a child?”

    roflmao. I was reading newspapers by the time I was 5, high school literature books (Prose and Poetry of England is one of them) by 7 or 8, 2 books/day from the library by 10. So, if there was a problem it was b/c I read just about anything I could get my hands on.

    I see too many unnecessary arguments, arguments that go on b/c people don’t understand the importance of non-violent communication. An important aspect of non-violent communication is for participants in the discussion to use “I” statements rather than “you” statements.

    If “violent” means acting in ways that result in harm, then much of how we communicate — with moralistic judgments, evaluations, criticisms, demands, coercion, or labels of “right” versus “wrong” — could indeed be called violent……

    The concepts and tools of Nonviolent Communication are designed to help us think, listen and speak in ways that awaken compassion and generosity within ourselves and between each other. Nonviolent Communication helps us interact in ways that leave each of us feeling more whole and connected.

    It ensures that our motivations for helping ourselves, and each other, are not from fear, obligation or guilt, but because helping becomes the most fulfilling activity we can imagine.

  43. Is it legal for a security guard to physically detain someone? If that person dies as a result of the restraint isn’t that manslaughter?

  44. Bettykath asked:
    “Is it legal for a security guard to physically detain someone? If that person dies as a result of the restraint isn’t that manslaughter?”

    It varies by state. I can only talk about WA because it is what is most familiar to me. Here is the gist of it:

    A security guard is no different than a private citizen. A private citizen can detain based upon the following: There might be more but this is what I remember.

    * To protect themselves or another person from harm by the detainee
    * To detain a person for arrival of police when the person has committed a crime against persons or in certain property crime
    * While being a merchant or an agent of a merchant to detain a shoplifter.
    * To detain a burglar or tresspasser until police arrival
    * While acting under the request of a law enforcement officer
    * At the request of a judge
    * Under the terms of a bail bond contract when the person has absconded
    * By employees or agents of a common carrier to detain a stowaway or disruptive passenger where safety is at risk.
    * By the sextant of a cemetery when the detainee has committed a crime that disturbes the peace or inflicts damage to the property (yes, there is actually a law for this on the books in WA)
    * a mentally hadicapped person who is a threat to the safety of him/her self and / or others.

    Interestingly, the courts (either the state supreme court or division 3 of the court of appeals I don’t remember which) ruled last year or so that assaulting a security officer or merchant while being apprehended for shoplifting constituted assault in the third degree (a class C felony) the same offense for assaulting a law enforcement officer making an arrest. The court ruled the statute applied to loss prevention officers who were authorized under state law to have powers of arrest for shoplifters and assaulting either a police officer or loss prevention officer making a lawful arrest constituted the same crime.

    Now for the second part of your question as to whether this constitutes manslaughter. In general a person may use “reasonable” force to effect an arrest based upon the circumstances involved. Essentially “reasonable” means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.

    For example. A shoplifter is caught leaving the store and a loss prevention officer takes hold of the person’s arm and walks them back to the office. That is reasonable. Beating them is not. But if the suspect fights back the loss prevention officer is authorized to use force to prevent themselves from being injured and to arrest the shoplifter.

    If we use the example of the person dying of a heart attack we look at the situation to see if it was a manslaughter. If the arresting lost prevention officer just used the arm hold the arm hold is not likely to cause a heart attack in the ordinary sense so there would be no manslaughter. If the loss prevention officer was not attacked or the arrest resisted and the loss prevention officer kicked the suspect in the chest and the suspect died of a heart attack it very easily could be considered a manslaughter due to the unreasonableness of the force and that unreasonable force was a proximate cause of the heart attack.

    Long winded, but I hope this helps answer your question.

  45. bettykath,

    Then you and I have something in common: we’re both early strong readers. I was reading and writing at a college level in the 4th grade. However, apparently you missed the part where I said I argue for sport which simply puts us at a dialectical difference in preferences of style. Your preference for NVC certainly explains a lot though. I’m familiar with the work of Marshall Rosenberg. I’m not a fan. I don’t subscribe to the view that human needs don’t conflict and that conflict arises solely when strategies for meeting those needs come into conflict. Some conflicts have no harmonious resolution. That’s why we as social beings living in societies have developed legal/judicial and other alternative dispute resolution systems. It’s a nice idea, but a bit too Pollyanna. I know this because history and psychology tells me so. Some like Coke, some like Pepsi. Some like RC. If my style doesn’t suit your tastes? Again, no one is compelled to read anything they chose not to. It’s your choice, not mine. But just as I won’t have the content of what I write or speak censored by others in society (ala PC), I won’t have the style of how I say it dictated by others in society either, not the least of which includes followers of Rosenberg. Free speech is free speech and as Darren said the other day, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

  46. (Bettykath I remember learning a long time ago when I want to write someone a note, or respond to them verbally about how I was affected by something they did or said, if I didnt want to make it accusatory, I should make it an “I” statement. I felt (thus and so) rather then “You made me feel, you did this, you did that.” )

  47. leej,

    Imo, it was good advice for retaining and even improving the relationship. Accusations tend to hurt relationships. Taken to the extreme, “you” statements are bullying.

  48. I was taught grammar.

    “You” is the pronoun for others directly addressed in the first person as they are the subject of address or the object of the sentence. Subject pronouns are used when the pronoun is the subject of the sentence. I, you, he, she, it, we, and they are subject pronouns. Subject pronouns are also used if they rename the subject. They follow to be verbs such as is, are, was, were, am, and will be. Object pronouns are used everywhere else (direct object, indirect object, object of the preposition). Object pronouns are me, you, him, her, it, us, and them.

    If that presents a problem for you or anyone else, I’m fairly sure there is no English Language Complaint Department or English/American version of the L’Académie Française. If there is? You can take it up with them, but this is a fine example of why I’m not a fan of either PC or Rosenberg.

  49. I know my grammar (I am a published author), The “I’ vs “you” has to do with a way of expressing and responding. You are talking dictionary and may not “get” the difference between emotional ‘grammar’ and english class.

  50. Let me rewrite that. I feel a misunderstanding as to the point of the discussion on “you” vs “I”. I feel a misunderstanding vs you don’t get it. The latter makes an accusation, the former does not.

  51. “I know my grammar (I am a published author)”.

    Then you should know better grammatically. If you don’t like my “way of expressing and responding” that is a matter of style, not grammar. A matter of content, not composition. If my style presents a problem for you or anyone else, they are under no compulsion to read what I write. If you disapprove of the content, that is also your problem. I’m under no constraint to speak what or how you see fit. Calling it “emotional ‘grammar'” or NVC or whatever you want to hide that behind is simply another name for censorship. What I say and how I say it is my choice. That is part and parcel of free speech as it is an individual right. Again, if you don’t like what I write? You are perfectly free to not read it. However, trying to tell me what or how to write – unless it is a legitimate point of grammar, not style – is an exercise in futility. It’s simply not your choice to make.

  52. Gene I don;t want to engage in an argument. I was explaining what I saw as the difference. I never said I disapprove (or hreck approve) of what you write. I have never suggested censorship and I have never engaged in personal attacks and I will not do so now. I come to the blog for the interaction about the posts and people’s thoughts and debates. Period.

  53. leej, The point is not understood. Effective communication can be difficult. I don’t think we will succeed here. I see defensive fences in Gene’s posts that won’t allow for effective communication except with those who already agree with him.

  54. Gene, Let me try one more time. I’ve been asking myself why your style of writing matters to me. I believe that I would benefit from some of your worthwhile thoughts. I think we both lose when I find your style to be so off-putting when anyone disagrees with you, and, taking your advice before you gave it, I don’t read most of your posts. When I see your name on a post, I have a rising anxiety b/c I have come to expect violence in your words. This is why I tried to get you to understand that there is another way, or style if you prefer. Certainly I have no right to make any demand that you change your style, and I don’t. My hope is that you will reconsider.

  55. bettykath,

    Agreement is not required. It never has been. I disagree with many posters and have disagreed with all of the guest bloggers (but one, the unreasonably reasonable Mike A.) and our host at times, but they never turn into verbal melee because they don’t use ad hominem or insult on me. Our disagreements remain sparring. However, if you (in the generic sense of “you”) contend that what I say is wrong, you should be prepared to prove it, not just expect your word to be taken for it. I can prove and reason my assertions and I do when they are challenged and often when they are not. To expect that of others is perfectly reasonable and equitable. It is not impossible to change my mind. It has been done here before and I’m sure it will be done again. That it is not easy and requires both proof and reason is immaterial to it being possible.

    If you have “rising anxiety” from my transactions with others, that is your reaction and as such it is yours to control and your responsibility. Your emotions are yours. I have never threatened you or anyone with violence here unlike some people including people you seem to object to my taking to task who has twice intimated that in real life he would try to do me harm because he didn’t like being proven factually wrong or getting better insult than he can give. Challenging someone’s facts or reason is not the equivalent of violence. I don’t know about you, but I deal with people as individuals and how they interact with me first and foremost. When I say if you had treated me the way some do when their assertions are challenged, you’d find yourself at the pointy end of my wit as well. You haven’t so you don’t and what should that tell you?

    You may hope all you wish, but my style not only recognizes and protects my rights but yours as well. Anyone is free to try to prove me wrong as they wish. I run from no challenge, but the challenger mush have proof and logic for their counterclaim or it isn’t a counterclaim, but an unfounded opinion. People are entitled to have and express their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts or to be free from challenge to their assertions. I’ve said it before: I’m a mirror. You get from me what you give to me. That is the Ethic of Reciprocity. You get what you give. You have never been anything but nice, reasonable and able to state what you think without resorting to ad hominem or insult and you’ve gotten the same treatment from me in return whether we agree or not on a given subject matter. That alone should inform that your rising anxiety is unnecessary as a matter of reason unless your anxiety is fear for others about to receive back what they have given. There is a lesson in that too. A lesson you already know, but others have yet to learn. I’m as nice to people as they let me be, but I’m as vicious to them as they demand by their choices in how they treat me. It’s my nature.

    But agreement is not required. As I said, I argue for sport. This requires a certain amount of disagreement for there is no argument when there is accord. That I would require agreement is not only illogical, but antithetical to my ends.

  56. If we can remember, the SYG laws, the Zimmerman case, Florida, YOU WERE THERE. The SYG laws are beginning to go into effect everywhere for the simple purpose of turning all corporate entities into little self-authorized armies. It is not surprising that this kind of story is making news now. This is the time for this sort of story to begin to be the story of our time.

    Welcome to the world of “we don’t need a trial on this one, Boss.”

  57. Malisha,

    Interesting take on the SYG laws. I’m going to have to think about that some. As a rationale for the Koch supporting SYG, it makes a certain sort of sick sense in expanding corporatism.

  58. Walmart has more blood on its hands.

    Fire Kills at Least 118 Factory Workers at Walmart Supplier in Bangladesh
    Tuesday, 27 November 2012 09:49 By Josh Eidelson, The Nation | Report

    NGOs slammed Walmart over a fire that killed at least 112 workers at a Bangladesh factory that supplied apparel for the retail giant. While Walmart says it has not confirmed that it has any relationship to the factory, photos provided to The Nation show piles of clothes made for one of its exclusive brands.

    In a statement e-mailed Sunday night, Walmart expressed sympathy for the victims’ families, and said that it was “trying to determine if the factory has a current relationship with Walmart or one of our suppliers…” The company called fire safety “a critically important area of Walmart’s factory audit program,” and said that it has been “working across the apparel industry to improve fire safety education and training in Bangladesh.” Walmart added that it has “partnered with several independent organizations to develop and roll out fire safety training tools for factory management and workers.”

    But in a Monday interview, Workers Rights Consortium Executive Director Scott Nova said Walmart’s “culpability is enormous. First of all they are the largest buyer from Bangladesh” and so “they make the market.” Nova said Bangladesh has become the world’s second largest apparel supplier “because they’ve given Walmart and its competitors what they want, which is the cheapest possible labor costs.”

    “So Walmart is supporting, is incentivizing, an industry strategy in Bangladesh: extreme low wages, non-existent regulation, brutal suppression of any attempt by workers to act collectively to improve wages and conditions,” Nova told The Nation. “This factory is a product of that strategy that Walmart invites, supports, and perpetuates.” The WRC is a labor monitoring group whose board is composed of students, labor organizations, and university administrators.

    The fire started Saturday night in a ground floor warehouse. According to media reports, the factory’s emergency exits were insufficient in number and unsafe in design, routing through the inside, rather than the outside, of the building. Some workers survived on the factory’s roof; several jumped out of the building. A lack of safe fire exits contributed to the death toll in New York’s notorious 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.

    A document on the website of the factory’s owner, Tuba Group, showed that the factory had received an “orange” rating from Walmart in May 2011, due to “violations and/or conditions that were deemed to be high risk.” The same document said that three such ratings within two years would result in a year-long suspension by Walmart.

    “Obviously, they didn’t do anything about it,” said Nova. He called Walmart’s internal monitoring system “a joke” that was “set up to enable Walmart to claim that it’s policing, without in any way, shape or form inconveniencing its production process.”

  59. add: “Wal-Mart has said the Tazreen factory was making clothes for the retail giant without its knowledge. Wal-Mart, which had received an audit deeming the factory “high risk” last year, said it had decided to stop doing business with Tazreen, but that a supplier subcontracted work to the factory anyway. Wal-Mart said it stopped working with that supplier on Monday.”

    Read more:

  60. Fox Business Contributor: Factory Fire Victims Appreciated Those Jobs

    Wow. Yeah. That poor ol’ profit motive being attacked again along with Wal-Mart. That’s the real tragedy according to FAUX.

  61. raff,

    I’m pretty sure that if you have any shame before accepting a job at Fox, that part of the terms of employment are that it be surgically removed before the first day of work.

Comments are closed.