Excessive force used on deaf 'shoplifter'

[ZedOmega]

Robbery and assault are out of wack. I'll agree with that. Even resisiting arrest is pressing it in my opinion.

As for police automatically siding with store? I never dealt with that before. Most cops that did come to store while I was strugging with shoplifter wants the whole story, from both people and any witnessess. Wants to see tape. Wants copy of tape. All this before arresting the shoplifter(s) who were lying through their teeth to police.

Due process. But due process also involves non-agressive tactics before any degree of restraint tactics are used. Stop suspect. Ask to see receipt. Inspect bag and check against receipt. Detain if suspect attempts to flee. Maybe Rea shoplifted, maybe he didn't. But the degree of force the store's security team was out of line as well.

Either way, we won't know for sure until the 24th, when Rea will be going to court for the charges.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Nyoibo never made it clear if he stole or not, just the fact that if anyone grabs them from behind, their going to be missing teeth. So he could be stating that he steals and dares guards to touch him so he could knock their teeth out.

He never made it clear whether or not he was a thief. Yet...you accused him without knowing one way or the other.

In anycase: Good thing to know if you shoplift, your going to be knocking teeth out of anyone that stops you.

Curious to know how much you shoplift? Maybe you'll punch the wrong guard who beat you to a pulp in defense.

And here is where it gets interesting.

People young and stupid are one thing. I don't need to direct any animosity, as someone else already has it for the massive thefts they did between 12-16 years old.

Here you come out and say that while you will accuse someone with whom you know not his status as a shoplifter one way or the other, yet you seem indifferent to a person who comes out and admits that he was a shoplifter.

Interesting. Very interesting.

[Plaidman]

He never made it clear whether or not he was a thief. Yet...you accused him without knowing one way or the other.



And here is where it gets interesting.



Here you come out and say that while you will accuse someone with whom you know not his status as a shoplifter one way or the other, yet you seem indifferent to a person who comes out and admits that he was a shoplifter.

Interesting. Very interesting.

1: Didn't accuse, just stated an opinion. Did you not noticed the if part? That doesn't mean he does shoplift, just IF.

2: The person who admited she shoplift does it no more, she knew it was wrong. As compared to people who still steal just because they haven't been punished yet. Pretty simple logic.

There are those who never stole in their lives. (Rare)
There are those that stole as a kid because they didn't know better.
There are those that stole because they wanted too in their teens.
There are those that stole in their adulthoods just because.
There are those that stole in their adulthoods because they had no choice.

Then there are those that know it's wrong, and keep doing it, because hey, nothing bad going to happen.

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.

[Nyoibo]

I'd just like to interject and say they'd never be missing teeth, never punch someone in the mouth, the infections you get from fight bites are nasty.

[Plaidman]

I'd just like to interject and say they'd never be missing teeth, never punch someone in the mouth, the infections you get from fight bites are nasty.

Not to mention you couldn't say bite me to them and expect them not to do it.

[draggar]

The article that Maggie linked shows that the items were purchased. The charges were inflated, though. Robbery? The man paid for his items, his friend was trying to show proof, and he was still arrested. Plus, robbery implies that the man was attempting to intimidate everyone in the store. And the assault charge is also trumped up; trying to escape a lethal hold in a panic and actually taking a swing at the guard are two different things entirely.

And the charges? Robbery and assault? At worst, they should be petty theft and resisting arrest. On top of that, at the time the guy was being detained (read: choked half to death), staff was ignoring the receipt in his friend's hands. And this all happened outside of an upscale Hollywood clothing store. The police would automatically side with the store, no matter what the verdict for the guy ended up as.

When I was on jury duty they made the laws in regards to stealing from a merchant clear (and this is Florida law, it was a state trial - YMMV state to state).

First you have theft - you take something and you leave without paying for it.

The next level is "resisting a merchant" - you take something with the intention of not paying for it (theft) and the merchant uses a reasonable effot to stop you (blocking you way out, telling you to stop, trying to stop you) and you resist their efforts.

Then we have the robbery charge - you take something and don't pay for it. During the process you use violence or the threat of violence to take it. Something as simple as saying "get out of my way or I'll kick your ass" or even raising a fist could easily escalate it to robbery.

People also love to use the whole "hindsight is always 20/20" approach. When a suspected thief is apprehended people can shout whatever they want - the security / police offiders do not know what is true or not and are usually focused on the task at hand - apprehending the alleged criminal.

I also find it interesting that the video starts when the security has him on the ground - what led up to that? Funny how videos NEVER have this, just the end result of "the man" taking someone down for no reason or using too much force (how do we know the apprehended person didn't try to punch security, or worse?).

Also, how the hell are they supposed to know he's deaf? Last I checked being psychic or having ESP were not a requirement of joining a security force.

The video is missing way too much to make any kind of judgement. I'd love to see a video of what led up to that.
but of course, we'll never see it.

[linguist]

Also, how the hell are they supposed to know he's deaf?

you mean other than his friend frantically signing to him while screaming "he's deaf" at the guards?

[Plaidman]

you mean other than his friend frantically signing to him while screaming "he's deaf" at the guards?

You never been in a fight much have you?

Especally in a crowd of screaming maniacs, in a busy mall.

Your focus at the task at hand, which is the shoplifter.

You ignore people's calls, because most of the time, they're likely shouting
"FUck you asshole!"

"Leave him alone!"

"We'll beat your ass!"

Because people always think that shoplifters are modern day robin hoods.

So yeah, you tone people out, which includes a screaming maniac, which is no different from the millions of other screaming maniacs they hear every single day at the mall.

[Red Panda]

Even without the knowledge that the man is deaf you don't think there needs to be a step between talking from behind and attacking? Why couldn't the gaurd get in front of the person?

[draggar]

Even without the knowledge that the man is deaf you don't think there needs to be a step between talking from behind and attacking? Why couldn't the gaurd get in front of the person?

How do you know he didn't? The video stats with them already on the ground.

He could have put his hand on the person's shoulder. He could have grabbed their arm.

The video starts with them on the ground so anything that happened before that is pure speculation.

We all know that what the alleged shoplifter says happened and what the security person said happened won't be the 100% truth.

People are maiking it sound like the guard just ran up and put the shoplifter in a choke hold. They're making it sound like the video takes place immediately after they left the store with no other attempt at stopping them. How can these assumptions be made when there is nothing to document what happened?

How do you know if the deaf person didn't take a swing at the security person? How about kick him? Grab the security person's throat? Pull a weapon? Threaten to blow up the mall? We don't know and never will unless other videos pop up and show what happened before this video.

Everything about who is in the right here is pure speculation - there is a lot that happened here that isn't on the video.

One thing is for sure - as quoted in the news article previously linked (I think on page one?) it was noted that he was already a convicted shoplifter so it is in his character to do so and no where did I see where it said he paid for his items. If he did steal from the store, then if he didn't maybe he wouldn't have been in this situation to begin with.

Edit: Linkl: http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...,6097535.story

LAPD officials identify the deaf male suspect as Alejandro Rea, and say merchandise from the store was found in his bag.

Authorities say Rea had a prior record of petty theft.

(Please note that no where in the article does it say he paid for the merchandise)

People love putting law enforcement in lose-lose situations.

[linguist]

You never been in a fight much have you?

i have, actually, but thanks for informing me what i have and haven't done.

there were two guards in the video; only one was involved in restraining the accused shoplifter. the other was right there with his friend while he was trying to sign to the man on the ground and yelling about him being deaf.

People love putting law enforcement in lose-lose situations.

one problem with this statement--these men weren't law enforcement. they were private security guards.

[draggar]

one problem with this statement--these men weren't law enforcement. they were private security guards.

As "private security guards" what is their job?

To enforce the law for the place that they are hired. I didn't mean to insinuate that they were police officers (on or off duty).

there were two guards in the video; only one was involved in restraining the accused shoplifter. the other was right there with his friend while he was trying to sign to the man on the ground and yelling about him being deaf.

I didn't hear that on the video and it looks like he was trying to interfere. He was trying to walk around the other security guard, etc..

[Plaidman]

i have, actually, but thanks for informing me what i have and haven't done.

So you fight all the time then?

As I said, pretty clearly,

Never been in a fight MUCH.

Never said you never been in a fight PERIOD.

Everyone fights sometimes.

[linguist]

As "private security guards" what is their job?

To enforce the law for the place that they are hired. I didn't mean to insinuate that they were police officers (on or off duty).
.

their job, according to the state of california, is:

 A security guard is NOT a peace officer.
 A security guard’s primary responsibility is to protect the property or persons he or she is assigned to protect.
 The main role of a security guard is PREVENTION.
 If prevention is not possible, the role of a security guard is to OBSERVE and REPORT.

the salient point here is the last one. what these men did goes beyond observe and report.

even assuming they've taken the requisite courses and achieved the requisite scores to allow them power to arrest, they overstepped that power according to the power to arrest training manual:

 A security guard is an agent of the property owner and can question people on the owner’s property.

they were employees of the store, not the mall. as soon as the accused stepped outside of the store, he was no longer on the owner's property.

 A security guard’s power to arrest is the same as any other private person’s.

if a private citizen had done this to the accused, they likely would be looking at assault charges.

 A security guard making an arrest must tell the suspect of the INTENTION to arrest, the CAUSE for the arrest, and the security guard’s AUTHORITY to make such an arrest.

we have no way of knowing whether or not this happened, but it's unlikely the suspect would have understood them in the given situation.

 REASONABLE FORCE in an arrest situation is a degree of force reasonably needed to
detain an individual and to protect oneself.

i'd say the amount of force used went a tad beyond reasonable.

 If a suspect does not feel free to walk away because of a security guard’s statements and actions, he may claim to have been under arrest.

clearly the suspect was not free to walk away, thus was by law under arrest.

 A security guard should never touch a suspect except for self defense, or when necessary to use reasonable force in effecting an arrest.

again, force went beyond reasonable.

 A security guard may search for WEAPONS ONLY and may search only when he has cause to believe that the arrested person is armed.

unless they had cause to believe he was armed, they had no right to search him

 If contraband or stolen items are discovered while searching for weapons, those items should be left on the suspect, unless there is a likelihood the suspect will dispose of them. When the suspect is turned over to the peace officer, he should be notified of the discovered items.

the bag in which he was allegedly carrying the stolen items was taken from him, and thus did not remain on his person.

[linguist]

So you fight all the time then?

As I said, pretty clearly,

Never been in a fight MUCH.

Never said you never been in a fight PERIOD.

Everyone fights sometimes.

once more, thanks for informing me what i have and haven't done.

i have been in a lot of fights, more than few in which i felt in danger for my life.