Excessive force used on deaf 'shoplifter'

[Hyena Dandy]

My problem with the chokehold is that a chokehold can kill someone, if used by someone who's not highly trained with it. There's a case that's winding its way through the Massachusetts courts now about a man who was accidentally killed when the police applied a chokehold to keep him quiet (the current focus of the debate is if the chokehold itself killed him, or if it was that combined with extenuating circumstances, and also if the situation warranted it)

I don't in any way condone shoplifting, but a chokehold is dangerous, and as Hobbs pointed out, the US Armed Forces don't have you use a chokehold on terrorists if there's another option. In that case, there was clearly another option. And from what I know about anatomy from watching that video, at one point the guard very nearly broke the man's neck.

I think the problem here is not that he jumped on the shoplifter, but rather that he used a chokehold. I don't have a problem with 'force used on alleged shoplifter', but the key word here is EXCESSIVE force.


I'm glad that he wasn't hurt, but what's important is that he could have been. He was ALMOST hurt, and therefore the guard should be suspended for doing something which could kill the man in a situation which didn't warrant it.






As for whether or not the alleged shoplifter is a shoplifter at all, I defer to the founding fathers and the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' standard they set up. And as such, I'll refer to him as an alleged shoplifter, and not consider the fact that he was arrested to be proof that he was guilty.

[Mikkel]

My problem with the chokehold is that a chokehold can kill someone, if used by someone who's not highly trained with it.

There was a case here in Copenhagen where a young man was put in a chokehold by the police, it was in '92, he was brain damaged because of this and never woke up again, he died two years ago. It is too dangerous, even police shouldn't use deadly force if there are no danger to anyone's life.

[ben_who]

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.

Too bad. I would have smashed his fingers with a sledgehammer and then had his flogged body standing naked in the store window with a sign around his neck saying "Shoplifter." Security guards should have the right to use deadly force to defend their store's cheap merch. If these horrible criminals didn't want to wind up dead in a pool of their own blood, they shouldn't have stolen that $25 made-in-Korea shirt.

Yes, there are rapists, serial killers, and people ripping tags off mattresses, but I reserve all my rage - ALL of it, and not one bit less - for shoplifters. If innocent people are injured, maimed, or killed by overzealous police, security, or store clerks, well, they shouldn't have looked so guilty, then. We'd all be better off if security guards were allowed to strangle people on the floor of the mall for stealing overpriced junk. It would be a better world with puppies and unicorns for everyone.

My hatred for shoplifters is so strong that if you accuse me of maybe having too much rage, I'll accuse you of being a shoplifter. If you don't believe a shoplifter deserves a violent beat-down, or that maybe there's a better way to deal with shoplifting than a violent beat-down, you must be a shoplifter, and I'll take my anger out on you since I can't get ahold of any shoplifters right now.

Wait a minute, why don't you agree with me? I bet you think the shoplifter is a sweetheart who never stole anything and donates his weekends to the ASPCA to take care of puppies. Oh, right, so you think no one ever shoplifted anything anywhere ever and all suspected shoplifters are innocent. ...What do you mean I'm using too much hyperbole? I'm being completely literal. I am genuinely convinced that you believe that no one ever shoplifts and all shoplifters are innocent, because it's convenient for me. So now YOU'RE my target. And this completely reasonable stance is what you have to argue against.

...Hey, where are you all going?

Love, Who?
Hoping like HELL Plaidman never suspects me of shoplifting...

[Gawdzillers]

The security guard should have been on his high school wrestling team, maybe he would have learned some moves other than a chokehold that can be used to restrain someone.

For example, after the initial choking, where the deaf guy gets out and flops into his back? Tons of stuff you can do there. You can simply lay on him, chest-to-chest, and scoop the head. You can get him in a near cradle. You can mount him and hold down his arms. A lot of these involve chest and/or belly compression, which makes it a bit more difficult to breathe, but I've never passed out from being pinned, even for an extended period of time, unlike a choke or strangle.

[Eisa]

Damn, so when I shoplifted when I was 9 years old, I should have been body-slammed and put in a choke-hold, right? Even though my dad turned me in to the store manager? 'Cause I was EVIL and shoplifted a pack of gum.

Good Gawd. Even if the man did shoplift, a choke hold was completely unnecessary and used too much force like the store obviously pointed out since the guard was SUSPENDED.

Cops are definitely not right 100% of the time, I don't even think a lot of the time. Look at how many people have been in jail for years or even put to death before they find out later oh OOPS you didn't do it. Sorry about that.

[Plaidman]

A few updates. Including the fact they have video proof of the guard tapping on the deaf man shoulder, showing badge and all that. Rae visually nodded, then fled. Which lead to the choke hold. Police also have tapes that show him shoplifting.

Yeah. Being deaf is not a free pass to shoplift.

Nor was the guard some brute that randomly tackled someone. He did his job.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=7619027

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=7609472

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Ok, now having more information, I am now ready to voice my opinion.

If it is true that the security guard tapped the individual on the shoulder, showed credentials, was visually acknowledged by the deaf man and then the deaf man fled the scene...

Then it is now a case of warranted action on the part of the guard. A more physical approach in dealing with a person fleeing the scene after setting off the anti-loss alarms was needed to catch them.

I'm not 100% sure if the headlock was the best way to hold and subdue, but at least I see the justification there.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Damn, so when I shoplifted when I was 9 years old, I should have been body-slammed and put in a choke-hold, right? Even though my dad turned me in to the store manager? 'Cause I was EVIL and shoplifted a pack of gum.

First of all, you were a minor and there are laws governing the physical contact between minors and adults.

Secondly you describe your situation as your dad having caught you and turned you in. You were not trying to flee the situation.

I agree that physical contact would not be the correct course of action in a case where someone gives up and hands over the merchandise. However, a fleeing subject is another matter entirely.

Good Gawd. Even if the man did shoplift, a choke hold was completely unnecessary and used too much force like the store obviously pointed out since the guard was SUSPENDED.

I agree there. I too am not 100% certain that the chokehold was the best thing to use in this situation. I'm partial to armlocks and the old joke of trying to put one's left elbow into their right ear (a poor fit at best) since it has less of a chance of doing permanent injury. The worst that can happen is a dislocation, but if the person doesn't struggle then it won't pop. It's simple, is disabling, and if the person in the hold doesn't struggle is only mildly uncomfortable. If they do struggle, then the injury is largely on them.

But while the chokehold is debatable, physical action was warranted in my opinion since they guy saw that he was busted and decided to leg it. That implies (but does not prove) guilt.

And for the record, the guard was suspended pending the investigation. This is the sort of thing that happens should a police officer do something that is possibly dodgy (shooting a perp, etc) and needs to be investigated to see if the action was warranted, proper, and done in accordance to the laws concerning and the training of police officers.

Cops are definitely not right 100% of the time, I don't even think a lot of the time. Look at how many people have been in jail for years or even put to death before they find out later oh OOPS you didn't do it. Sorry about that.

First of all, remember that a fair number of the actions taken by officers regarding the alleged perpetrators of crimes are done under stressful situations. When a person is fleeing in a car and endangering the lives of innocents on the roadways, or when an officer is under direct attack (either in a melee encounter or using ranged weapons), adrenaline takes over. In the life-and-death struggles kick in I can understand the mentality of "It's going to be him or me, and it damn sure ain't going to be me."

And for the record, the police are often the least involved people regarding the people in jail wrongly. The prosecution is often the ones who are overzealous in the process. Often using the fact that the person accused was of a minority or otherwise socially disadvantaged as the driving argument as to why the accused did what he was alleged to have done.

Many of those cases, the police just arrested the alleged perp, took photos of the crime scene, sent in the CSI team (the real ones and not those twats in sunglasses with classic rock blaring in the background whenever they say something even remotely witty), and put the evidence in the warehouse to be looked at by the prosecution and the defense teams.

[Eisa]

Well, yes, I can see how some physical action may have been required, since he was fleeing [although I thought someone posted how they weren't supposed to follow and apprehend, but just "observe and report?"] Definitely don't think a choke hold was right, but I can see trying to grab the guy.

True, cops aren't necessarily all that involved in wrongful cases, I think I'm just bitter about the whole criminal system there...

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, the security guard not only opened himself and his place of employment up to lawsuits and fines, but there is the possibility that the shoplifter might end up not really serving the time he should due to this fiasco.

Good job, mister overzealous security guard.

Oh, and whether or not the guy did or did not actually take anything is irrelevant to this whole debate. It's a red herring.

The question is whether the force used was appropriate, and the answer is that not only was it unacceptable, it's also illegal.

^-.-^

[Tanasi]

As it was in the Chris Rock video, if the police have to chase you down, they're bringing an ass-whoopin with them. Don't want the security guard to choke you out then don't steal. They guy knew he was doing wrong and he got what he deserved.

[Plaidman]

The question is whether the force used was appropriate, and the answer is that not only was it unacceptable, it's also illegal.

^-.-^

Stealing is also illegal. Didn't stop him from doing it. A good chunk of shoplifters just keep doing it over and over, much like this deaf guy, this is what, his third time now busted for shoplifting? Sometimes you just need to take action to stop shoplifters so that they are caught, held down and given to police rather then just twiddle your thumbs and let them go and hope police might catch them eventally, which they rarely ever do, and watch as the shoplifter comes back later to steal more.

[Andara Bledin]

Stealing is also illegal. Didn't stop him from doing it.

True. And he should be punished once it's proven.

However, that is also entirely irrelevant.

Two wrongs still do not make a right.

^-.-^

[Fire_on_High]

The way policies are, and how people seem to want them, even here, is just let them have it.

Yeah. That'll make them stop stealing.

"Oh I've seen the light with my history of being let go! YAY!"

This is of course assuming they are even indeed found by the police which is pretty fucking rare as it is, unless you hold them for the police.

This is why I wouldn't be too sad to see it become standard and expected that if the cops are called for shoplifting, someone's going to be getting their head stitched or have a couple broken handbones to show for it. Rough justice is true justice!

This part was a huge failure in communication but who is to blame? We can't expect deaf people to wear a sign stating that they're deaf but we also can't expect everyone to learn sign language.

Can't force them nor should you be able to...but it doesn't seem entirely like a bad idea if a deaf person chose to, either. When you're in a world that's not your own but you look just like everyone else, life could go a lot more smoothly if only it were known that a bit of extra attention should be paid.