Excessive force used on deaf 'shoplifter'

[linguist]

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..

he's trying to sign to him pretty much through the whole thing, mostly trying to get him to calm down, and at about 1:20 he looks at the guard holding him back, points to his ear, and yells "deaf! deaf!"

[Plaidman]

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.

Well good. Then you fully understand the concept of tunnel vision and only focusing at the task at hand, and if something isn't an immedity threat, you don't hear or see it.

Shoplifters are strange bunch. They are willing to seriously kill or maim people to get a way. I've been stabbed, smashed in the head with wine bottles, even had guns point at me so that a thief can have a dollar beer.

When I've been forced to fight, I've never paid attention to any other shoppers yelling, just the thief and how to get him down before he takes me down.

[Hobbs]

You never been in a fight much have you?

If this guy is a professional, I would suspect he should be able to pay attention to someone yelling in his ear "he's deaf!" I've had shots going off over my head (M-16s firing blanks) while simulated IED's were going off...and my training officer expected me to pay fucking attention to my surroundings.

I've been in barfights too, and can tell you that if you tune things out, that's a stupid way to fight.

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

I'd like to know who all these people are that you claim this about. I certainly don't think this way. In fact, I was almost written up for following a family of shoplifters to their car and reporting it to the police.

[draggar]

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.

How do you know the interaction didn't start in the store and then get carried out into the mall? We don't.

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

(snip)

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

What if the accused was a threat? Again, we do not know what happened before the video. No one here was there (or at least no one was claiming to be there) so no one on this forum has any way of knowing what happened before it. If he was a serious threat to anyone then the public does have the right to defend themselves.

again, force went beyond reasonable.

Again, how can we make this assumption? What if 10 seconds before the video started the accused had a knife and was swinging it at the security officers? What about a gun? What if he was high on drugs?

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

Where were they taken? If they were taken outside the store then he was guilty of shoplifting - even the CA equivelant of FL's "resisting a merchant" law.

If they were taken inside the store while he was walking out then they can get him with attempting to shoplift.

If they were taken while he was still browsing the store then the store's security would have a very hard time justifying it.

We need to make our judgements on fact, not speculation. As per the article:

"We recognize that the security guard used excessive force, which is against our store policy and have suspended him indefinitely," said Forever 21 Marketing Department representative Kristen Strickler in a statement.

OK, he went beyond the store's policy in reference to force. This he should be held accountable for.

The video allegedly shows security guards at the Hollywood Boulevard store tackling and choking a deaf man after he failed to stop when an alarm sounded as he exited the store.

OK, the deaf man won't hear the alarm but don't most of these also have lights?? Everyone I've seen go off had lights. The question is - are the lights visible to a person when they set off the alarm?

He was arrested and posted bail (it's really hard to post bail without being arrested) so even the local police had a reason to arrest him. Since he was charged with robbery and shoplifting. Accoridng to the CA definition of Robbery:

Robbery: the taking or attempting to take anything from value of the care, custody or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.

(source: http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/policie.../corrtable.pdf )

This means that the police had evidence that he threatened at least one person to take the property.

I do not know if CA has a law similar to Florida's "resiusting a merchant" law.

The police also had evidence that he was shoplifting - this means they found him in posession of merchandise from the store that he did not pay for.

he's trying to sign to him pretty much through the whole thing, mostly trying to get him to calm down, and at about 1:20 he looks at the guard holding him back, points to his ear, and yells "deaf! deaf!"

To most people sign language looks like people waving their hands. I can recognize it but only because I was friends with a deaf person in college and Ilearned some very basic signing (now forgotten).

Also, many deaf people are not easy to understand in normal conversation, add in a shopping mall, trying to protect another security guard in a scuffle, and people shouting all around you I can easily guess it was extremely hard to even get the point across. 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.

Maybe this will have some good out of it. We have a universal sign for choking - maybe one for deaf people? I'm thinking Nick Andros from The Stand - he puts his hands over his ears and slowly shakes his head no.

[linguist]

How do you know the interaction didn't start in the store and then get carried out into the mall? We don't.

even if this was the case, their jurisdiction ends at the store's door. once the suspect has crossed that threshold, the security guard's duty is to report their observations to actual law enforcement.

Maybe this will have some good out of it. We have a universal sign for choking - maybe one for deaf people?

there is, and the man made it. pointing at the ear is not only the asl sign for deaf, but also the generally accepted one to communicate deafness to the hearing.

[draggar]

even if this was the case, their jurisdiction ends at the store's door. once the suspect has crossed that threshold, the security guard's duty is to report their observations to actual law enforcement.

Unless he feels his safety is at risk, then he has the right to defend himself.

there is, and the man made it. pointing at the ear is not only the asl sign for deaf, but also the generally accepted one to communicate deafness to the hearing.

I've never seen or heard of it. In fact, if someone pointed to their ear I would have not made that assumption.

[linguist]

Unless he feels his safety is at risk, then he has the right to defend himself.
.

if he felt his safety was at risk, when the suspect left the premises the threat to his safety is over. pursuit only increases to risk to bystanders.

[Hobbs]

What if the accused was a threat? Again, we do not know what happened before the video. No one here was there (or at least no one was claiming to be there) so no one on this forum has any way of knowing what happened before it. If he was a serious threat to anyone then the public does have the right to defend themselves.

Funny, you seem to make it sound as if Linguist's and our own inability to know the full extent of the altercation invalidates our arguments. So why are your arguments so super-snowflake-special?

Again, how can we make this assumption? What if 10 seconds before the video started the accused had a knife and was swinging it at the security officers? What about a gun? What if he was high on drugs?

Again, how can you make the assumption that something did happen?

We need to make our judgements on fact, not speculation.

Yes, you do.

OK, the deaf man won't hear the alarm but don't most of these also have lights?? Everyone I've seen go off had lights. The question is - are the lights visible to a person when they set off the alarm?

My store didn't/doesn't have flashing lights on the anti-theft pillars/whatcha-who-its.

He was arrested and posted bail (it's really hard to post bail without being arrested) so even the local police had a reason to arrest him. Since he was charged with robbery and shoplifting. Accoridng to the CA definition of Robbery:

This means that the police had evidence that he threatened at least one person to take the property.

The police also had evidence that he was shoplifting - this means they found him in posession of merchandise from the store that he did not pay for.

Then the police should have arrested him. Even when I followed the shoplifters, I had no intent of detaining them, because I knew that was against the law.

Also, many deaf people are not easy to understand in normal conversation, add in a shopping mall, trying to protect another security guard in a scuffle, and people shouting all around you I can easily guess it was extremely hard to even get the point across. 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.

I think it's pretty incontrevertible that it's the security officer's fault.

Maybe this will have some good out of it. We have a universal sign for choking - maybe one for deaf people? I'm thinking Nick Andros from The Stand - he puts his hands over his ears and slowly shakes his head no.

Wow, that last part has so many levels of fail...

[Ginger Tea]

Sadly Sign Language isnt international
ASL as used in the video would come out as waving hands to a BSL user, spoken there are variations but we understand each other across the pond, but a signing conversation might be fraught with confusion, hell I even encountered regional variations for some basic signs (that I've all but forgotten)

[draggar]

if he felt his safety was at risk, when the suspect left the premises the threat to his safety is over. pursuit only increases to risk to bystanders.

If you beleive that then I'll point a weapon at you from 10 feet away. Would you feel that your safety is at risk then?

What if the guard was outside the store to "observe and report" and to make sure he didn't go back into the store (to protect the customers, employees, and property) and then was attacked by the deaf person?

Don't forget - the deaf person was charged with robbery and as I pointed out, the deaf person used force, the threat of force or violence, and/or put the guard in fear to take the property.

I don't know if California law considers resisting part of the violence / threat etc.. or not.

The main issue is that everyone is making the security guard out to be the bad guy with a short video clip that starts in the middle of a confrontation. Plus, poeple are jumping all over the fact that he was deaf! He was deaf! He was deaf!

Let's hear two scenareos:

First one - I shoot a blind person in my yard. They were showing me their walking stick to show that they were blind.

Eveyone would be all over me for this, right?

Second one - I shoot someone in my yard at night. They were pointing what looked like a gun at me.

Sounds like I was in the right with this one?

(BTW - Florida has a "stand your ground" law - you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself and family if you think your life is in danger)

Completely different intermperations for the same story. We're seeing the frist version but not the second.

There is too little information available to make a sound judgement on this.

Yes, the guard overstepped his duties (according to the store's policies) as a security guard and used too much force to stop a shoplifter (since we do not know if it was self defense we can't include that) and if it was proven to be excessive, he should be held accountable. It is a completely different story if it was in self defense.

But also, the poolice found enough evidence to arrest the deaf person for shoplifting meaning they found store merchandise in his posession that he did not pay for outside the store.

[Red Panda]

Its amazing all these situations you can come up with to justify the guard's overeaction all while ignoring the fact that it would probably have been reported by the media if the deaf man was running around threatening people with a knife like you made up.

[linguist]

Its amazing all these situations you can come up with to justify the guard's overeaction all while ignoring the fact that it would probably have been reported by the media if the deaf man was running around threatening people with a knife like you made up.

not to mention the fact that if there was any sort of weapon involved, he would have been charged with armed robbery under california law and not second degree robbery. my reading of the california law makes it sounds as if the robbery charge stems from his resisting, not due to direct threats. the store's own internal investigation supports this:

Our internal investigation has shown conclusively that the security guard approached and identified himself to the suspect after the light and sound anti-theft alarms were triggered. The suspect visually acknowledged the guard and then turned and fled the scene.

he fled. he did not threaten or use physical force. as such the guards were under an obligation to cease pursuit at the door and report their observations to law enforcement.

[ZedOmega]

Its amazing all these situations you can come up with to justify the guard's overeaction all while ignoring the fact that it would probably have been reported by the media if the deaf man was running around threatening people with a knife like you made up.

That is a good point. If Rea did threaten someone in the store, the report would've mentioned it. "Witnesses say that (age) (lastname) pulled out a weapon and started making threatening gestures with it towards the staff." All the report said was that he was arrested for robbery and assault.

I'm still not seeing proof that it was either one of those, just shoplifting.

[draggar]

Its amazing all these situations you can come up with to justify the guard's overeaction all while ignoring the fact that it would probably have been reported by the media if the deaf man was running around threatening people with a knife like you made up.

It's amazing how everyone else can assume that the guard just tackled the deaf person and instantly put him in a choke hold.

I was also giving possibilities (hence "WHAT IF"). Just because people choose not to report it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The only media presence there was that video which starts in the middle of the altercation. Unless other videos surface that shows earlier events then there is no way of knowing what happened before.

What if the alleged shoplifter wasn't deaf? Would we have this post and be discussing this? Would there be such an outcry over this? It's funny in this day and age when people are striving for equality people always point out our someone's difference to make them the victim.

He's the victim because he's deaf.
The officer punched the girl because she was black (from another thread here).
The immigration officer shot and killed that kid because he was Mexican (the illegal immigrants trying to cross the border).

Would any of these would have made the news if it was a member of the majority?

It's impossible to make an impartial judgement based on the video and statements in the news article.

[linguist]

I was also giving possibilities (hence "WHAT IF"). Just because people choose not to report it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

and i'm drawing conclusions based on fact. the fact is he was charged with second degree robbery, not armed robbery. therefore, there was no weapon.