Excessive force used on deaf 'shoplifter'

[Red Panda]

So 100% proof means somebody said they did it, because nobody is ever wrong.

[Plaidman]

So 100% proof means somebody said they did it, because nobody is ever wrong.

Wow.

Guess you haven't read a single thing I wrote in this entire thread.


Fine.

I would give everyone here suggestions to never ever leave your home, seeing as all guards just randomly assualt people, throw them into choke holds. Then, cops come and arrest you. Then, judges throw you into jail on $55,000 dollar bail, because they just felt like it.

Yep. That's all people do. They just beat the shit out of people for no reason, throw you in jail for no reason, and press charges, Just. For. FUN.

Or, you know, cops saw the tape that showed the thief stealing, and arrested for that.

Cops seeing NO shoplifting, they would have arrested the guard for assualt.

Why is this such a difficult thing to understand?

[Red Panda]

I get it. If a person is arrested that means they are 100% guilty. Thats good. Looks like we don't need trials anymore. Mistakes never happen. Police are right 100% of the time. I'm glad you figured this out, think of all the time we will save.

[Plaidman]

I won't stop you if you want to think that. That isn't my view.

But if you want to, feel free.

[Red Panda]

You can't claim something isn't your view when you say it is your view two posts earlier. You do realize people can read the old posts right? They don't disapear.

[Plaidman]

Really? Where did I say that police are 100 percent right all the time?

[Red Panda]

You said the police don't arrest people unless they are guilty.

[Plaidman]

Again. WHERE. What post did I state that?

[KnitShoni]

To be fair, Plaid didn't state 100%. He simply said they rarely, if ever, arrest people without proof.

[Plaidman]

To be fair, Plaid didn't state 100%. He simply said they rarely, if ever, arrest people without proof.

Thank you.

On that note: This really had two outcomes.

1: The man shoplifted, and they have proof of it.

2: The man did not shoplift, and the man tackled him. Fine. Mistakes happen. Guard gets sued and loses his job, the man gets treated like a king for a while. But here is where the likely hood of gets lower and lower. Not just because he was arrested, because if the police DID arrest him, Without ANY proof, they open themselves to a major lawsuit. So the deaf man could charge both them and the mall with unlawful arrest, assault, unlawful detainment, and with the police, and additional charge of kidnapping.

Now.

Do you really belive the police would literly dig themselves into a big grave of lost job and major lost of being sued, if they didn't do, a tiny, bit, of checking, with, a tape, instead of just taking the guard's word for it?

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Do you really belive the police would literly dig themselves into a big grave of lost job and major lost of being sued, if they didn't do, a tiny, bit, of checking, with, a tape, instead of just taking the guard's word for it?

The police...no. At least not in this situation. I have seen police overstep the bounds of proper use of force. Well, ok...not *seen*, but have read about or heard about it from various news sources. But in most of those cases, the abuse came from a condition called "Contempt of Cop". Wherein under the adrenaline charged state, the police officers lose conscious control of themselves and can get really aggressive. It's something they are now trying to train officers to be able to snap themselves or another officer out of before it gets bad.

In this case, the officers wouldn't have had that and would have walked into a under control situation. Regardless of the opinions of how it was brought under control. They would have taken reports, looked at security tapes, looked at the contents of the bag.

Now since the guy WAS arrested, the officers found sufficient evidence to place the guy into custody where he will eventually end up in court to prove his innocence or to be found guilty thanks to the evidence at hand.

I have no problems with how the officers handled the situation. I do have a problem with the way the security guards handled it. I think the guards may have overstepped their bounds. I know that the guy in question was turning colors from the choke hold. I do know that at one point the guy's neck was in a dangerous angle that one wrong move could have broken his neck. I could debate this until the cows come home.

But in the end, it is now in the hands of the courts. One case for the guy who was arrested for shoplifting, and possibly another case for the guard. In the end, only time and the courts will tell what will happen next.

[Racket_Man]

To interupt the love feast goin on here

I was just watching CNN while eating dinner (yes 5 am is dinner time for me) and on the crawler on the bottom of the screen they flashed the guard has been SUSPENDED.

too tired right now to do a proper search for the story.

[draggar]

It was noted that he was suspended in the new artlcie linked several pages back, too.

[ZedOmega]

To interupt the love feast goin on here

I was just watching CNN while eating dinner (yes 5 am is dinner time for me) and on the crawler on the bottom of the screen they flashed the guard has been SUSPENDED.

too tired right now to do a proper search for the story.

Is this the story?

[Plaidman]

I was fine with the choke hold. It got him down.

I'm not fine with the slamming against the wall he did in the office when the man had basically given up at that point. That had no point.