Walmart Sued Over Shoplifter Death

[LiddyRules]

So, any of you think they have a case?

HOUSTON -- Family members of a Texas shoplifting suspect who suffocated during a struggle with Wal-Mart store employees are suing the retail giant.

The death of Stacy Clay Driver, of Cleveland, Texas, was ruled a homicide by the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office. It was caused primarily by asphyxia from compression to the neck and chest.

Medical examiners said hyperthermia with methamphetamine toxicity were the secondary causes.

Driver's family is seeking unspecified damages against Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart. The family said the retailer should demonstrate that loss-prevention employees, who work to spot thefts, meet training standards.

The 30-year-old Driver died Aug. 7 after employees at a Wal-Mart near Houston pinned him face-down and handcuffed his hands behind his back.

He was accused of stealing a $94 gift card. The struggle lasted 30 minutes.

Wal-Mart said its workers receive adequate training.

[DoughBoy]

I hope they don't have a case:

1. It is texas.
2. If some meth-head fuckface is going to try and steal shit, he should be prepared to die for his theft.

[JoeyDVDZ]

But we live in america, where it's almost a fucking national pasttime to sue for shit that's your own damn fault & get away with it.

[abudabit]

Unfortunately they do have a case. It is illegal to detain shop lifters until they leave the store.

This was a meth head who was putting up a struggle for 30 minutes. In a fair world there wouldn't be a case.

[fothermucker]

Anything that hurts Wal-Mart is ok in my book.

[Cage]

So fucking what! Doesn't Texas have the death penalty?

[HummerTuesdays]

I hope Wal-Mart loses, but only has to pay the family $1 because the jury determins that's all the meth-head's life was worth. It's not like he was some productive member of society.

Edit: Also, he wouldn't be dead if he didn't struggle. I say it's his own damn fault.

[Bill]

Unfortunately they do have a case. It is illegal to deta
in shop lifters until they leave the store.


Did you read (or see) somthing else that indicated that they didn't wait until he left the store? The article posted doesn't indicate one way or the other.

[Harvey_Birdman]

The article reads that he was accused of stealing a gift card, it does not answer whether or not he actually was stealing one.

For those who think he deserved what he got, would your response change if he wasn't actually stealing one?

Now consider that the decision to detain him on suspicion of theft was made by a "loss prevention employee". Not a cop, not a trained security guard, but some poor schmuck who would have been lucky to graduate high school. Are those the type of people you want watching you at the store? Would you trust high school dropouts to determine whether or not you've stolen something?

When overzealous asshole authority figures act out and people are injured, I hope they get sued while being bent over some of that cheap plastic lawn furniture Wal-Mart imported from China and given the business by a large purple dildo.

[JoeyDVDZ]

Any reason the dildo is specifically purple, Mr. Birdman?

[LetsDoThisLucas]

The article reads that he was accused of stealing a gift card, it does not answer whether or not he actually was stealing one.

For those who think he deserved what he got, would your response change if he wasn't actually stealing one?

Now consider that the decision to detain him on suspicion of theft was made by a "loss prevention employee". Not a cop, not a trained security guard, but some poor schmuck who would have been lucky to graduate high school. Are those the type of people you want watching you at the store? Would you trust high school dropouts to determine whether or not you've stolen something?



Now as you say the man was only accused of such theft, claiming we/and/or employees are jumping to conclusions, then you go and assume that the employee of the store is some low-life as well. The article didn't say the employee was some sort of uneducated drop-out did it? I missed that part. I'm sure they had good reason to suspect the man of theft, plus the theft part is not the point in question.

In my opinion if this goes to trial (which it won't) the man's family will not "win." They will settle out of court. As the contributing cause of death was the fact that he was high on illicit drugs. It was a tragic accident. However Wal-Mart will probably up its training standards as well. How come there isnt a criminal case?

I'm not the biggest fan of Wal-Mart either but ppl try too hard to find any way to knock it whether it be bad press or suing for any sum of money.

[jarabforlife]

The only reason they said that he was accused of stealing a gift card because he had not had a trial and been convicted. I could kill somebody in front of the cops and if I am killed before they process me or anything I am "accused of murder"

[Bill]

He was accused of stealing a $94 gift card.

A $94 gift card? Has anyone ever purchased a $94 gift card before?

That's the weirdest denomination of gift card that I've ever heard of.

[Kyle]

Good. Fuck Wal-Mart.

[Harvey_Birdman]

Now as you say the man was only accused of such theft, claiming we/and/or employees are jumping to conclusions, then you go and assume that the employee of the store is some low-life as well.

Yeah, I mean that was kind of my point. I was trying to sarcastically draw a point about making stereotypes without all the facts of the situation. I guess that didn't translate very well. My apologies to all the hard-working intelligent people working at Wal-Mart loss prevention.

However, my real concern, about who these people are to act with such authority, is still real. Wal-Mart loss prevention employees, no matter how well trained, are not police officers (whose own training often leaves a lot to be desired). They shouldn't act like it.

I'm sure they had good reason to suspect the man of theft, plus the theft part is not the point in question.
What good reason? I have no indication of that from the story. I'm still curious as to if you would think it would be allright for the Wal-Mart folk to act this way if the guy was actually innocent. Even if they had "good reason to suspect" him of theft, but he was actually innocent, would they have been justified in acting this way.

The theft part is pertinent, because it goes to the appropriateness of the response. It's not appropriate to kill people for shoplifting. (sarcasm) Listening to hoo-hoo, maybe, but not shoplifting. (/sarcasm)

In my opinion if this goes to trial (which it won't) the man's family will not "win." They will settle out of court. As the contributing cause of death was the fact that he was high on illicit drugs. It was a tragic accident. However Wal-Mart will probably up its training standards as well.
Settling out of Court is still a "win" for the man's family.
And it remains to be seen if this was a tragic accident or if it was another egregious example of assholes with authority acting up.

How come there isnt a criminal case?
If you mean for the death of the alleged shoplifter, (sarcasm) probably because he was a meth-head, and my understanding is that those Texans don't really think of meth-heads as people down there. (/sarcasm)

The only reason they said that he was accused of stealing a gift card because he had not had a trial and been convicted. I could kill somebody in front of the cops and if I am killed before they process me or anything I am "accused of murder"
And you could also be innocent, and be "accused of murder." An accusation is not evidence, and neither is being jumped by Wal-Mart loss prevention employees.

[LetsDoThisLucas]

Well if sarcasm was your point then I stink:) but yea I saw that contradiction and felt I had to point it out.


I believe the point in question is the training standards of Wal-Mart. Whether someone steals or not (if he did or didnt) the standards are still in question.

Settling out of Court is still a "win" for the man's family.

That is why I put quotes around that word.

However, my real concern, about who these people are to act with such authority, is still real. Wal-Mart loss prevention employees, no matter how well trained, are not police officers (whose own training often leaves a lot to be desired). They shouldn't act like it.


Agreed to some extent. Some feel too self-important. Police officers have a very difficult job and are only judged when they do something wrong in some people's eyes. But I feel they do a pretty good job overall more often than not everyday relying on thier training standards.

What good reason? I have no indication of that from the story. I'm still curious as to if you would think it would be allright for the Wal-Mart folk to act this way if the guy was actually innocent. Even if they had "good reason to suspect" him of theft, but he was actually innocent, would they have been justified in acting this way.

Well in my opinion I felt they had a good reason because, I think somoene mentioned it b4, it was a $94 gift card. A wierd denomination which sounds like he asked for it from a cashier or whatnot and walked away without paying for it. I might be wrong about that but that was my first thought wen I read that

[BravoSierra]

The 30-year-old Driver died Aug. 7 after employees at a Wal-Mart near Houston pinned him face-down and handcuffed his hands behind his back.



What a pussy.

[Myhairygrundle]

Bottom line...

Shithead was stealing again.
He was high on meth.
He wanted to fight.
He died with meth in his system.

I don't give a shit if it was wal-mart or a mom and pop store. Mofo got what he deserved.

[Harvey_Birdman]

I believe the point in question is the training standards of Wal-Mart. Whether someone steals or not (if he did or didnt) the standards are still in question.
Fair enough. In that case then it's an even more egregious case. Wal-Mart employees should not be trained to hold people down until they asphyxiate. That they did so in this case indicates a meaningful breakdown in the training process. As Wal-Mart is responsible for the actions of its employees on its behalf, they are liable for the man's death.

Well in my opinion I felt they had a good reason because, I think somoene mentioned it b4, it was a $94 gift card. A wierd denomination which sounds like he asked for it from a cashier or whatnot and walked away without paying for it. I might be wrong about that but that was my first thought wen I read that
All supposition and assumption on your part.

[Sutsu]

I've never understood the whole anti-walmart sentiment that some people hold. But even beyond that I'm in full agreement that if the guy was just an innocent fellah, he wouldn't have struggled for THIRTY FRIGGIN" MINUTES before having the decency to just die. There are more rights out there, if not from the law then from the courts, for criminals than those who want to protect their goods and/or livelyhood.

Now, I work at a particular national auto parts store and we have a problem with people stealing shit, and my DM said that it's all good to stop someone while they're inside the store, not cool to go after them once they get out of the store (unless we're off the clock). Is it really the other way around?

[Etherfiend]

Good. Fuck Wal-Mart.

Good. Fuck Meth-Heads.

[abudabit]

The article reads that he was accused of stealing a gift card, it does not answer whether or not he actually was stealing one.

For those who think he deserved what he got, would your response change if he wasn't actually stealing one?

Now consider that the decision to detain him on suspicion of theft was made by a "loss prevention employee". Not a cop, not a trained security guard, but some poor schmuck who would have been lucky to graduate high school. Are those the type of people you want watching you at the store? Would you trust high school dropouts to determine whether or not you've stolen something?

When overzealous asshole authority figures act out and people are injured, I hope they get sued while being bent over some of that cheap plastic lawn furniture Wal-Mart imported from China and given the business by a large purple dildo.


What a lawyer response. The struggle lasted 30 minutes. The guy was tweaked out of his mind. Of course he was stealing shit. And how is a security guard detaining a shop lifter "over zealous"?

He died of exhaustion as a result of the meth running through his system and the struggle he put up. All the "over zealous" security guard did was attempt to detain a shop lifter.

[abudabit]

I've never understood the whole anti-walmart sentiment that some people hold. But even beyond that I'm in full agreement that if the guy was just an innocent fellah, he wouldn't have struggled for THIRTY FRIGGIN" MINUTES before having the decency to just die. There are more rights out there, if not from the law then from the courts, for criminals than those who want to protect their goods and/or livelyhood.

Now, I work at a particular national auto parts store and we have a problem with people stealing shit, and my DM said that it's all good to stop someone while they're inside the store, not cool to go after them once they get out of the store (unless we're off the clock). Is it really the other way around?

Yeah, if they haven't left the store then they haven't shop lifted yet and you get busted for unlawful detention, or some shit like that. More lawyers protecting criminals over law abiding citizens.

[abudabit]

Fair enough. In that case then it's an even more egregious case. Wal-Mart employees should not be trained to hold people down until they asphyxiate. That they did so in this case indicates a meaningful breakdown in the training process. As Wal-Mart is responsible for the actions of its employees on its behalf, they are liable for the man's death.

What should they do? Give up after he squirms for about 10 seconds? If he didn't fight there wouldn't be a problem, and if he wasn't twacked out of his mind he wouldn't have asphyxiated.

[JonBenetRamsey]

well, was he black? if so, his family has no case.

[abudabit]

Sounds like a redneck to me. Meth, Texas, Walmart shoplifting, put up a fight for 30 minutes.

[Sutsu]

What if they hit the alarm detector or are passing the registers with obviously no intention to pay? 'cause otherwise, there's no way that once they get out of the store you can really detain them without dragging them back in and then you're asking even more for a lawsuit... just sounds stupid to me.

[tar_baby]

hick

[Harvey_Birdman]

What should they do? Give up after he squirms for about 10 seconds? If he didn't fight there wouldn't be a problem, and if he wasn't twacked out of his mind he wouldn't have asphyxiated.
They shouldn't use a level of force that asphyxiates someone. The article describes them as Wal-Mart loss prevention employees, that doesn't sound like a professional police officer well-trained in the use of physical force. If you aren't properly trained to subdue someone without asphyxiating him then you shouldn't try to subdue him.

There's no allegation that the "meth-head" had a weapon, was violent prior to the altercation with security, or posed a physical danger to anybody. Absent those circumstances Wal-Mart employees had no imperative to physically restrain the guy.

Presumably they've got the whole thing on security videotape, they should have just let him go on his way and called the police. By restraining him they also put other members of the public in danger who could have been caught up in the fight.

[abudabit]

They shouldn't use a level of force that asphyxiates someone. The article describes them as Wal-Mart loss prevention employees, that doesn't sound like a professional police officer well-trained in the use of physical force. If you aren't properly trained to subdue someone without asphyxiating him then you shouldn't try to subdue him.


I think you are confused about the effects of meth. You don't need to smother someone or press down on thier neck to asphyxiate them. Thier body heats up, and it gets so hot that it no longer effectivly handles oxygen. On top of which the body is requiring excess oxygen because thier metabolism is on over drive. So when they are wrestling and using extra oxygen and making extra heat from that, they often die.

How does one get trained to avoid asphyxiation? How? What is this magical technique that causes a meth head to not over heat? The article mentions specifically he died by asphyxiation through hyperventilation, and it's laywers like you attacking the people who were just trying to grab a shop lifter. Do you understand this? Does this concept even sink into your head (if you aren't being paid to think it)? Somebody who was just trying to detain a shop lifter is getting charged with man slaughter - after the shop lifter died as a result of the meth running through his veins and the 30 minute wrestling fest he attempted.

Just once I would like to see lawyers opposed to crime without being paid as a DA.

[Harvey_Birdman]

I think you are confused about the effects of meth. You don't need to smother someone or press down on thier neck to asphyxiate them. Thier body heats up, and it gets so hot that it no longer effectivly handles oxygen. On top of which the body is requiring excess oxygen because thier metabolism is on over drive. So when they are wrestling and using extra oxygen and making extra heat from that, they often die.

Thanks for the information, and no one's saying that the meth didn't play a role in his death, but according to the medical examiner the primary cause of death was asphyxiation and he ruled it a homicide. There's no evidence that the "meth-head" would have asphyxiated on his own.

How does one get trained to avoid asphyxiation? How? What is this magical technique that causes a meth head to not over heat?
How about not forcibly holding someone down for 30 minutes?

The article mentions specifically he died by asphyxiation through hyperventilation, and it's laywers like you attacking the people who were just trying to grab a shop lifter.
(sarcasm) C'mon, let's be honest now. They weren't just "trying to grab a shop lifter", they were trying to show off their special authority by beating down a "meth-head". Would they have done the same thing if it was a giant rampaging black man? (/sarcasm)

And don't change the substance of the article, that's not cool. It doesn't say anything about hyperventilation. It says that the death "was caused primarily by asphyxia from compression to the neck and chest." Let's not try to read into this case more than we know. We can only go by what the article contains.

Do you understand this? Does this concept even sink into your head (if you aren't being paid to think it)? Somebody who was just trying to detain a shop lifter is getting charged with man slaughter - after the shop lifter died as a result of the meth running through his veins and the 30 minute wrestling fest he attempted.
The article didn't mention anything about the loss prevention employees being charged with manslaughter. I doubt such a charge would hold, and I would vigorously defend anyone charged as such.

What the article does mention is Wal-Mart being sued for its employees acting inappropriately. The facts in this case seem to me to potentially rise to the level of inappropriate conduct on the employees behalf. Without knowing the full facts I can't say for sure whether the suit should be successful or not, and neither can anybody else.

Just once I would like to see lawyers opposed to crime without being paid as a DA.
(sarcasm)And just once I'd like to see cops opposed to corruption, graft and the violation of civil rights without being paid as part of the internal affairs department.(/sarcasm) What's your point?

[LetsDoThisLucas]

Subdue - To quiet or bring under control by physical force or persuasion.

and yes meth was a contributing cause ruled by the medical examiner.

tragic accident.......anyway back to sports for me

[Myhairygrundle]

Hey Harvey... you might want to look up use of force laws in Texas. They are different. Look over this and see what you think.

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.


When he decided to go from theft to robbery, he went to felony. His choice.

Now for use of force ....

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Of course this is criminal law, not civil.

[Harvey_Birdman]

Hey Harvey... you might want to look up use of force laws in Texas. They are different. Look over this and see what you think.

Thank you for providing the text of the law for what it's worth. However, I don't think it applies for the following reasons:

1. No one is denying that the "meth-head" was allegedly committing a crime. Were he alive he might very well have been charged with theft or robbery and if the evidence was sufficient he should have been convicted.

2. I think a good case could be made that he was not committing the more serious crime of robbery because there is no evidence that he caused bodily injury to another or that he threatened to do so.

The following is supposition on my part, but I got the impression that he didn't start thrashing about until after he was accosted by security. Whether he was trying to retain control of the property or just escape is another point.

3. And as you noted, the use of force law applies only to criminal situations, not civil. This means it is unlikely the loss prevention employee would be charged with a crime, just as I suggested earlier, but does not mean that he escapes civil liability for his acts (or rather, that Wal-Mart escapes civil liability for his acts).

[Milwuakee Cop]

I say more people need to die. Not just criminals. I'm sick of being late to work because of people.

[Harvey_Birdman]

I say more people need to die. Not just criminals. I'm sick of being late to work because of people.

Fair enough. You could start your own golden ticket program. Just don't hand out any to the retards, I can't imagine you'd want them around in your new utopia.

[Milwuakee Cop]

First is the old. The street I live on is 50. They put in a huge assisted living condo complex and some other "senior" condos just down the street from me in what used to be woods. Now these cocks drive up and down the road doing 40 at the most and usually put on and turn off thier directionals for no fucking reason. I no longer have to worry about being scoped by a deer when I leave to go to work at 10:30 at night, I also have to worry about the old driving to no where fast in the morning when I'm coming home.

The retards can stay, we all need to feel better about ourselves now and then, just like watching the movie Momento, that cheers me up.