Posted on 01/13/2009 11:01:53 AM PST by Michael.SF.
These guys need an ass-whoopin’ on top of going to jail, but maybe being behind bars for a bit will straighten out their attitude.
To bad we can’t depend on store clerks to do their job and send “cutters” back to the end of the line.
There was a great cartoon years ago that showed the lady at the express checkout register holding a huge, smoking handgun. Big sign over her head says “Express Lane - 10 items or less.” There’s a guy on the floor with a hole between the eyes and 11 items are piled on the counter. The caption was something like, “Anyone other dumb SOB want to try to slip more than 10 items by me?”
My guess is they tried for a couple of weeks, maybe a month, before they realized they were peeing against the proverbial wave. Or maybe were threatened for trying to do their job.
A large shopping store should have their own ON-DUTY security identified as such.
To me, the officer here abused the power of his badge by contributing to a potential altercation (”what are you gonna do about it” is a provocation of bravado) knowing that if he took a punch, it would still be assault of an officer.
He should have declared his “non-civilian” status.
But in a BETTER world, the officer EMPLOYED by Wal-Mart would respond to the counter to handle the skirmish.
A regular Joe customer who challenged anyone cutting in line would be on his own.
There was a thread posted here some time ago where two women at Disneyland got into an altercation over jumping the queue (one ended up in the hospital weeks later claiming damages from the other). I defended the woman (partially in jest) for attacking the queue jumper, boy did I catch hell from the Freeper's on that one.
I guess I’m one of the few that isn’t too impressed with this one either. I’m glad the cutters got busted but it kind of sounds like they were egged on by someone who had a secret. (hehe...they don’t know they are messing with a cop). I would rather the regular folk in line had set them straight.
once the guy threatened to shoot the cop (even if it was only implied), it rose to a different level.
that makes zero sense to me. it seems that the off-duty cop here was the only one who was willing to stand up to these bullies.
by contributing to a potential altercation (”what are you gonna do about it” is a provocation of bravado)--- Do you have a source for that quote? The article simply says he asked what his intentions were.
He should have declared his “non-civilian” status.--- He did, then he called for an on duty cop.
I partly blame the media for that state of affairs. The press is so full of stories of people who stood up to bullies, only to be savagely beaten and/or killed for their efforts that people have been conditioned to think of the worst case scenario for what will happen if they confront some toolbag who is doing something that isn’t right......
I try to avoid “cops are always wrong or that can do no wrong” posts. Sorry.
It is an assumption.
“...asked whether Kirby wanted to take the dispute outside. When Kirby asked Pluhar Sr. what his intentions were...”
The threat came when he asked Kirby if he “wanted to take the dispute outside”. What other type of question do you infer Kirby responding with from that passage? It was a provocation to continue the dispute.
Even if he asked “Are you SURE you want to do this?”, it isn’t going to calm the guy down.
SECURITY should be on hand to resolve any confrontations at a big store.
Then again, I was at a Whole Foods Market, saw an adult male dent/scratch a car’s front door trying to back out of a parking spot, got the license number, and gave it to the uniformed officer where he promptly did nothing with the information.
I guess they stand guard to keep property from walking out the door (shoplifting) and robbers from hitting the cash registers.
First: Kirby's dispute was with the son, not the father. When the father then stepped in to defend his son (who looks like he can take care of himself), he was in essence escalating the dispute (two against one).
Second: Your assumption of the question asked also assumes the tone in which it was asked was one of escalation and/or provocation. We have no facts to support both assumptions.
The bottom line is this: The son was wrong to cut in line, the father wrong to join in the dispute (which was relatively minor) and then by even mentioning a gun, the father over reacted.
I really do not see that Kirby did anything wrong or inappropriate.
I could write a lengthy disclaimer of my appreciation for law enforcement. That said, I have a question...
Why is an off-duty cop given greater protection than a civilian? Example: If an off-duty cop gets into an altercation at a bar and the other guy either threatens or strikes the off-duty cop, why is it assulting an officer instead of simple assult or assult and battery? Is the off-duty cop in some perpetual state of protected status?
and what? end up dead? in any case, i guess cops shop at Wal-Mart...
I do not have answers to those questions and am 100% on your side on this one.
Years ago, a friend of my brother's was killed in a bar fight. An of duty cop acted inappropriately towards the guy's girl friend and was called on it by my brother's friend. Fight ensued, cop got the crap beat out of him, went to his car, came back with a gun and killed the guy.
This occurred at a popular 'cop bar' and none of patrons would come forward to testify against the cop. Local cops backed up their fellow cop and no charges were ever filed.
Dumb and Dumber
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.