Mulva you make a good point but fact is no one wants to step in anymore due to fear of what could happen if they mess up and make it worse!

Mulva wrote: I'm still wondering why not a single witness took action while a man was choked to death for several minutes in front of them.

A simple "What the fuck are you doing?" probably would have sufficed.

QFMFT

I Wear Pants wrote:

jmog wrote: Actually Fab is right, if you can talk you can breathe. Anyone who's ever studied any grappling/wrestling/jiujitsu/etc knows that.

Like Fab said, most wrestling referees, that's how they can tell if the kid is faking to get off their backs or not. If they actually say something like "I can't breathe" or "He's choking me" then he's breathing just fine.

All this is why I said earlier, that when the shoplifter said "I can't breathe" the CVS manager probably adjusted the choke hold some and the result is what we read...at that point he couldn't breate.

It's far more likely that the dude died from lack of blood to the brain than from lack of oxygen. Don't choke people if you don't know how that shit works.

If you read my one post about my opinion on what happened, that's what I think happened exactly. The CVS manager has no clue about blood chokes, he applied a choke that wasn't working at all (the guy said "I can't breathe") and then he adjusted the hold and ended up in a blood choke without knowing it or anything about blood chokes.

The shoplifter was probably dead within 30 seconds or maybe a minute after that.

Dude should be in jail.

To play devils advocate here, sorry da! lol For those saying a tube of toothpaste and crayons isnt worth trying to physically stop a thief, then what level of stealing, or dollar amount of stealing is justifiable to an owner or employee to try and physically stop someone from taking something that doesnt belong to them? This scenario is that the owner or employee doesnt get a good look or description of the thief and no video surveillance or anything to give police.

Emmanuel Kant would have a field day with this! lol

I do agree that the end result the thiefs death is a direct correlation to his action. Deserved or not.

redstreak one wrote: Emmanuel Kant would have a field day with this! lol

Philosophy win.

Good. One less thief on the planet. And you know this wasn't his first crime.

redstreak one wrote: To play devils advocate here, sorry da! lol For those saying a tube of toothpaste and crayons isnt worth trying to physically stop a thief, then what level of stealing, or dollar amount of stealing is justifiable to an owner or employee to try and physically stop someone from taking something that doesnt belong to them? This scenario is that the owner or employee doesnt get a good look or description of the thief and no video surveillance or anything to give police.

Emmanuel Kant would have a field day with this! lol

I do agree that the end result the thiefs death is a direct correlation to his action. Deserved or not.

To answer your question, according to every retail store I've ever worked for (and probably every retail store in the US) NO dollar amount is worth physically restraining a thief. The risk is too high to not only the employee's life, but yes, even the thief's life.

What if this thief had a gun and turned around and shot the manager in the head when he came after him? That is the risk that retail corporations aren't willing to take, and the reason why almost every store's policy is that if you physically confront or restrain a customer, even one who is stealing, you're terminated.

The laws and rules unfortunately are set up in favor of the thieves, not the stores. But it is that way for a reason.....so that tough guy vigilantes like this manager don't go around killing every petty thief who steals some worthless item.

^^^^^

I agree that NO DOLLAR AMNT is the correct answer. Why does this manager even give a fuck in the first place. Like his corporation gives that much of a fuck about him??? Yes Masta.

And it isn't the job of employees or owners of stores to catch thieves. That's the job of police. Store employees/owners should make it harder to steal things but should never get involved in trying to catch or punish thieves beyond a "hey, what are you doing" or "you can't do that, please leave".

If this was Walmart they just would have held him at gun point

They pierce ears with handguns?!

I Wear Pants wrote: And it isn't the job of employees or owners of stores to catch thieves. That's the job of police. Store employees/owners should make it harder to steal things but should never get involved in trying to catch or punish thieves beyond a "hey, what are you doing" or "you can't do that, please leave".

sSome companies have security departments, so obviously they don't "leave it to the police".

Also, most manager's bonus is tied into their shrink, so shoplifting does affect their income. Maybe this guy was getting ripped off a lot and finally couldn't take it anymore.

ManO'War wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: And it isn't the job of employees or owners of stores to catch thieves. That's the job of police. Store employees/owners should make it harder to steal things but should never get involved in trying to catch or punish thieves beyond a "hey, what are you doing" or "you can't do that, please leave".

sSome companies have security departments, so obviously they don't "leave it to the police".

Also, most manager's bonus is tied into their shrink, so shoplifting does affect their income. Maybe this guy was getting ripped off a lot and finally couldn't take it anymore.

Those security people have training and certifications so that they know some basic laws involved with the situations and they know that the most they can do is hold the person until the police arrive.

I don't care if they stole 100% of the dude's paycheck. Don't fucking kill people.

My Brother in Law is a cop and works off duty as security at Krogers.. Even he's told to let people go even if he sees them stealing.

ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: My Brother in Law is a cop and works off duty as security at Krogers.. Even he's told to let people go even if he sees them stealing.

Because holding people against their will can result in a massive world of legal hurt for the company. Especially if you murder the person.

Fab1b wrote: If this was Walmart they just would have held him at gun point

LOL If it were only real.

What the hell is that kid doing in Wal Mart without a shirt on? Don't they have a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy?!?!

HA! That would eliminate a good portion of their business.

sonofsam wrote:

Fab1b wrote: If this was Walmart they just would have held him at gun point

LOL If it were only real.

What the hell is that kid doing in Wal Mart without a shirt on? Don't they have a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy?!?!

Now maw just bought him that shirt 2 days ago and i'll be damned if she is gonna let them get blood on it.

^^^Well, nevermind, he doesn't have shoes either.

Fab1b wrote: If this was Walmart they just would have held him at gun point

You say mother fucker?

When I was a C.O., I knew a guy who tried to snatch a purse from an old lady 2 weeks after he got out of county jail. She fell and hit her head and died. He is doing life in prison now for trying to snatch a purse.