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

Skip to comments.

Woman Slashed (By Employee) At Gainesville Wal-Mart
WCJB TV-20 News ^ | 12/17/06 | Michael Maurino

Posted on 12/17/2006 9:03:33 PM PST by Roberts

One local teen went to a store to go shopping and ended up taking a trip to the hospital after a fight with an employee.

Now the store employee is facing jail time after slashing her across the neck.

Gainesville Police say the 17-year-old teenage girl was visiting the Wal-Mart on Northwest 13th Street.

She had walked out of the store, but went back when she thought she left her cell phone in a shopping cart.

Detectives say she approached 18-year-old Wal-Mart employee Darius stacy, who was retreving the carts, and asked if he had the phone.

The two started arguing, and then shoving each other before Stacy pulled out a weapon.

"The employee had a box cutter and he cut the 17 year old in the throat," said GPD Sgt. Keith Kameg. "Fortunately, they were non life threatening injures."

The young woman was treated at Shands U-F for a cut that extended from her left ear to her windpipe.

Stacy is being charged with attempted murder.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: florida
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: exhaustguy
In an ideal world, the scumbag who cut her would recompense her and make her whole, but we know THAT isn't going to happen.

The next best thing would be for the scumbag to go to jail for a long time and for WalMart to be big enough to offer to pay her for her medical bills and also a modest amount of cash to cover her trauma and scarring (a four inch long scar from her neck to her ea is a big deal for a woman) even though they may not be technically liable for it. Should that happen, I also hope that the woman also be big enough to accept it and not look at this as winning the lottery and holding out for the big bucks for herself and some slimy lawyer.
41 posted on 12/17/2006 10:20:01 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

Although a firearm is by far the most effective means of self-defense, I agree that martial arts training can be very effective and helpful - as a primary source of self-defense in places where guns aren't allowed, or as a way to buy that extra second or two to get at the gun.

And I would have loved to see a story about a wannabe thug getting his ass kicked by one of those black belt ladies.


42 posted on 12/17/2006 10:21:33 PM PST by JillValentine (Being a feminist is all about being a victim. Being an armed woman is all about not being a victim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: trussell

Your about page says your home state is Colorado. I need to look up the law in my state to see how much leeway a person has in using force to protect others, but seeing as how I live in Illinois...


43 posted on 12/17/2006 10:23:57 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

Boxcutters don't kill people, people kill people. Rosie O'Donnell and Babawawa will be banning all boxcutters tomorrow on The Phew.


44 posted on 12/17/2006 10:26:52 PM PST by I'm ALL Right! ("Tolerance" is only required of Conservatives and Christians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GnuHere

What does"diversity"have to do with this case?Some young punk who happended to be black commited a very dangerous and stupid crime.Send him away for a long stretch.Case closed.
If a white kid did something similiar,would you make the"diversity"comment?


45 posted on 12/17/2006 10:35:55 PM PST by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: JillValentine
[And I would have loved to see a story about a wannabe thug getting his ass kicked by one of those black belt ladies.]



That did happen. Several years ago, one of our black belt ladies was attacked by a man in a parking lot after midnight; he pulled a knife on her and told her to get into his car.

She beat him down to the ground in a few seconds with some very aggressive kicks to the groin, ribs, neck and head, and he regained consciousness just in time to enjoy the trip to the hospital. She didn't get a scratch.

I'd like my daughter to take martial arts classes but you need a lot of dedication to really make it pay off-- and she's 13 right now with interests all over the board and she can't seem to pay attention to one thing for more than five seconds. :^)
47 posted on 12/17/2006 10:38:39 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: trussell

Thanks.

cutting, pasting and printing now for later reading.


48 posted on 12/17/2006 10:40:22 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
Wow...lets try that again

Illinois laws about using a firearm in defense are as follows:

ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION


(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑4)
Sec. 7‑4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑8)
Sec. 7‑8. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
(a) Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, within the meaning of Sections 7‑5 and 7‑6 includes:
(1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the
person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and

(2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which
the person to be arrested is riding.

(b) A peace officer's discharge of a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm shall not be considered force likely to cause death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Sections 7‑5 and 7‑6.
(Source: P.A. 90‑138, eff. 1‑1‑98.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑9) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑9)
Sec. 7‑9. Use of force to prevent escape.
(a) A peace officer or other person who has an arrested person in his custody is justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody as he would be justified in using if he were arresting such person.
(b) A guard or other peace officer is justified in the use of force, including force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, which he reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑10) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑10)
Sec. 7‑10. Execution of death sentence.
A public officer who, in the exercise of his official duty, puts a person to death pursuant to a sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, is justified if he acts in accordance with the sentence pronounced and the law prescribing the procedure for execution of a death sentence.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑11) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑11)
Sec. 7‑11. Compulsion.
(a) A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense punishable with death, by reason of conduct which he performs under the compulsion of threat or menace of the imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, if he reasonably believes death or great bodily harm will be inflicted upon him if he does not perform such conduct.
(b) A married woman is not entitled, by reason of the presence of her husband, to any presumption of compulsion, or to any defense of compulsion except that stated in Subsection (a).
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑12) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑12)
Sec. 7‑12. Entrapment.
A person is not guilty of an offense if his or her conduct is incited or induced by a public officer or employee, or agent of either, for the purpose of obtaining evidence for the prosecution of that person. However, this Section is inapplicable if the person was pre‑disposed to commit the offense and the public officer or employee, or agent of either, merely affords to that person the opportunity or facility for committing an offense.
(Source: P.A. 89‑332, eff. 1‑1‑96.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑13)
Sec. 7‑13. Necessity.
Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑14) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑14)
Sec. 7‑14. Affirmative defense. A defense of justifiable use of force, or of exoneration, based on the provisions of this Article is an affirmative defense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
 

49 posted on 12/17/2006 10:42:16 PM PST by trussell (Proud to be a Jesus Freak! / Happy camper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

print the next one instead...better formatting, easier to read. Sorry, something went terribly wrong in the original posts formatting. :(


50 posted on 12/17/2006 10:45:10 PM PST by trussell (Proud to be a Jesus Freak! / Happy camper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
His mother later brought him to the Gainesville Police Department

Yea to the mom!

51 posted on 12/17/2006 10:46:00 PM PST by Fierce Allegiance (Iron my shirts, woman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance

His mother later brought him to the Gainesville Police Department...Yea to the mom!<<<<<<<<

Indeed, how refreshing. Unlike the creeps accused here of beating the three white girls on Halloween: the parents and black activists have blamed the victims and done everything possible to keep their kids from accepting responsibility for their actions.


52 posted on 12/17/2006 10:58:11 PM PST by Mjaye (Some folks close their mouth only long enough to change feet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: trussell

Thanks, again. :^)


53 posted on 12/17/2006 10:58:51 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

My pleasure. Happy to help with your research :)


54 posted on 12/17/2006 11:00:21 PM PST by trussell (Proud to be a Jesus Freak! / Happy camper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
"How many times do I have to tell you, slash the prices!"

Wouldn't it be weird if the girl's last name is Price?

55 posted on 12/18/2006 3:55:10 AM PST by Living Free in NH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GnuHere

Pretty simple really.
Folks come her from all over the country.
A very unstable populace shifting from one place to another.
So many folks coming that wages are lower then many other places and to get ahead it is very difficult especially for young folks with few skills looking to make it.
It is the weather and the plentiful jobs, the beach and the excitement that attract as opposed to say Cedar Rapids.
(not meaning any disrespect ). But this time of year loads of bums make their way here.


56 posted on 12/18/2006 3:56:29 AM PST by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dighton

Shands is the University of Florida Medical School teaching hospital, across the road from the big regional VA hospital, both have pretty good reputations.


57 posted on 12/18/2006 6:42:06 AM PST by skepsel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skepsel
Thanks.

Posts made after hours and under the influence look less clever in the morning, which I should know by now.

58 posted on 12/18/2006 6:55:21 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

If Wal Mart had paid this young man a living wage and provided free health care, he wouldn't have felt compelled to strike out at a customer.

It's all Wal Mart's fault!!!


59 posted on 12/18/2006 6:59:12 AM PST by GatorGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

At least his mama turned him in, instead of hiding him and insisting her boy's a good boy who never gets in trouble.


60 posted on 12/18/2006 7:00:35 AM PST by Xenalyte (Anything is possible when you don't understand how anything happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 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