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
Oops, now they get there before the ambulance.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
They lose on 3. There's no way for WM employees to reasonably believe that.
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.
oh cry me a river
Shoplifting is no reason to lose one's life. Have a sense of perspective.
Shoplifting is no reason to lose one's life. Then don't shoplift.
I notice no one is in jail yet....
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.
No one will go to jail and if a lawsuit is filed it will either be dismissed or they will lose.
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.
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.