Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man dies in scuffle with security guards
The Cleveland Advocate ^ | 08/10/2005 | Jamie Nash

Posted on 08/23/2005 10:47:25 AM PDT by JamesP81

A Cleveland man died last Sunday after a scuffle with security guards at the Walmart Super Center located at 6626 FM1960 in Atascocita.

According to witnesses, Stacy Driver ran out of the store and was pursued by Walmart loss prevention employees. A short time later, Driver was dead, and the Walmart employees were trying to explain the last moments of his life to police.

Charles Portz said he was getting out of his car when he saw a heavy blonde haired man being chased by five people who appeared to be security or store employees. He said he saw them wrestling the man to the ground. "The blacktop was extremely hot," said Portz "He had no shirt on and they wouldn't let him up off the blacktop."

snip

According to Portz, Driver began to plead with them men. "He's begging, 'Please call an ambulance, let me up, do something, I'm gonna die," said Portz. He said the loss prevention employees called the police more than once, but another bystander called for an ambulance after realizing Driver was in trouble. Portz said he eventually began to plead with the Walmart employees. "I told them, this guy doesn't look like he's breathing," Portz said, "They said, 'He's all right."

snip

The store employees could not have known that the witness who was pleading with them to let Driver get up from the hot pavement was a high profile Houston attorney, from the Portz and Portz law firm.

snip


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 31yroldshoplifter; deathcultivation; donutwatch; stealingbeatworking; thoushallnotsteal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-246 next last
To: Melas
Well when you are in bad shape and have health problems you shouldn't try to outrun LP employees after committing theft in a hot walmart parking lot.
141 posted on 08/23/2005 1:06:55 PM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
The store employees could not have known that the witness who was pleading with them to let Driver get up from the hot pavement was a high profile Houston attorney, from the Portz and Portz law firm.

Oops, now they get there before the ambulance.

142 posted on 08/23/2005 1:07:50 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
From your citation:

9.41: A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree

-------

Guess the legislature thinks that there are degrees of force as well....

143 posted on 08/23/2005 1:08:10 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt

Lets not be selective when you cite something.
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


144 posted on 08/23/2005 1:12:22 PM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
Well when you are in bad shape and have health problems you shouldn't try to outrun LP employees after committing theft in a hot walmart parking lot.

And companies that put their untrained, unarmed LP people in harms way, are liable, and get sued, big time.

__________________________________________________________

Police seek man who shot Sears worker

The News-Herald

PUBLISHED: July 6, 2005

LINCOLN PARK — A Sears loss prevention officer was shot twice Friday while trying to catch a man stealing cologne.

145 posted on 08/23/2005 1:15:59 PM PDT by Black Tooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
They didn't kill him, he died because of his own actions. They had every right to pursue and subdue him.

Once you subdue someone, the situation changes, legally speaking. Your right to use deadly force more or less goes away once you have subdued someone, no matter how big of a threat they might have been before you subdued them.

146 posted on 08/23/2005 1:16:51 PM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
What is your point? Your contention that there is no such thing as "excessive force" is completely errant.

There are degrees of force. One must use reasonable force. If one is not justified in using deadly force, then they have used excessive force.

147 posted on 08/23/2005 1:17:20 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

In addition, as I and others have repeatedly pointed out, once a suspect is handcuffed and restrained, the arresting person has custody of the suspect and is responsible for their wellbeing. You can not restrain someone and then shoot them, which is essentially what happened here.


148 posted on 08/23/2005 1:19:13 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: vrwc0915

"Not a single one! The only time I ever touched a person that was not being arrested was a push with a baton in order to put distance between myself and an irate victims parent. Slamming someones head into anything is not only opening yourself for IA but poor tactics."

Perhaps I have watched too many episodes of COPS.
The purpose of my comment was to rip on you for having a hypocritical attitude regarding the way you handled suspected criminals and then complaining when you were treated the same way. I was ready for a good rant, but now you've gone and ruined it.


149 posted on 08/23/2005 1:19:23 PM PDT by BadAndy (Back from temporary moderator-induced exile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
They did not use deadly force. As a matter of fact they would have been justified to run after the guy and hit him in the knees with a ballbat to stop him but instead they wrestled him to the ground and subdued him till the cops got there. He died while being subdued.
150 posted on 08/23/2005 1:20:11 PM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

They lose on 3. There's no way for WM employees to reasonably believe that.


151 posted on 08/23/2005 1:21:34 PM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt

They did not arrest him, they subdued him.They were acting as agents of their employer. I they reasonably thought they needed to sit on him untill the cops got there to keep him from getting up and fighting or running they had every right.


152 posted on 08/23/2005 1:23:28 PM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Melas

oh cry me a river


153 posted on 08/23/2005 1:25:00 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
I am amazed at the thinking of some people. They blame the walmart employees and not the thief for his actions.

Shoplifting is no reason to lose one's life. Have a sense of perspective.

154 posted on 08/23/2005 1:25:51 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Shoplifting is no reason to lose one's life. Then don't shoplift.


155 posted on 08/23/2005 1:27:51 PM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

I notice no one is in jail yet....


156 posted on 08/23/2005 1:28:12 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: BadAndy
The silent majority in law enforcement detests abuse under the color of law, that gives us all a bad name. Bad actions are bad actions no matter who is doing them. I always treated everyone the way I would expect to be treated while in law enforcement. Did I ever have to use force of course did I enjoy it NO. If the tables were turned I would give a person that was obviously trying to produce a receipt time to do so, in addition I would clearly announce my intentions before going hands on, they did not, they were punks looking for a fight and almost got one.

Sorry to ruin you rant :)
157 posted on 08/23/2005 1:28:43 PM PDT by vrwc0915
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

My FRiend, you are the answer to every plaintiff's lawyer's dreams.

Your knowledge of criminal law is spotty and selective. Your apparent belief that this story begins and ends with criminality, or the lack of it, is at best uninformed, and at worst willful. These two things, taken together, means you are a big payday for someone, just waiting to happen.

You really ought to read this entire string again, from the top. Several people, who appear to know whereof they speak, have given you some insights that are spot-on, and contain some good advice.


158 posted on 08/23/2005 1:30:36 PM PDT by surely_you_jest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

No one will go to jail and if a lawsuit is filed it will either be dismissed or they will lose.


159 posted on 08/23/2005 1:31:54 PM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
They did not use deadly force.

That's going to be for a jury to decide, if it ever gets to court (Wal-Mart will settle). It won't take Clarence Darrow to point out that putting someone face down and having several security guards lay on top of them while they turn gray and plead for their life is a pretty clear-cut example of deadly force.

As a matter of fact they would have been justified to run after the guy and hit him in the knees with a ballbat to stop him but instead they wrestled him to the ground and subdued him till the cops got there.

Your analogy does not work. If they had him subdued and then continued to beat him with bats until he died, that would be closer to what actually happened here.

He died while being subdued.

He died after being subbdued. That is an important distinction.

160 posted on 08/23/2005 1:32:22 PM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-246 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson