MR

This makes 2 in 2 weeks! How long are we going to sit idly by and allow this evil empire to continue to grow thereby eventually answering to no one? This company is out of control and has the finances to purchase or quiet anyone who get in their way. Their business practices are off the charts with regard to ethics, treatment of employees and vendors... oh yeah and of course shoplifters. They price fix so blatantly now that they don't even respond anymore to the accusations. Their reply to mfrs. and vendors is, "You'll give us what we want or we'll pull your product from our stores!" which is a death sentence to every company whose products are found in a WalMart. They're too big and getting bigger. We all just better pray to God the Federal Govt. keeps denying their requests to allow them to enter the banking and finance arena. If that happens, the US economy will belong to WalMart!
http://www.examiner.com/article/alleged ... -employess
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 58080.html

JRNYMAN wrote:This makes 2 in 2 weeks! How long are we going to sit idly by and allow this evil empire to continue to grow thereby eventually answering to no one? This company is out of control and has the finances to purchase or quiet anyone who get in their way. Their business practices are off the charts with regard to ethics, treatment of employees and vendors... oh yeah and of course shoplifters. They price fix so blatantly now that they don't even respond anymore to the accusations. Their reply to mfrs. and vendors is, "You'll give us what we want or we'll pull your product from our stores!" which is a death sentence to every company whose products are found in a WalMart. They're too big and getting bigger. We all just better pray to God the Federal Govt. keeps denying their requests to allow them to enter the banking and finance arena. If that happens, the US economy will belong to WalMart!
http://www.examiner.com/article/alleged ... -employess
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 58080.html

The 1st indecent sounds like straight up assault by the 2 Walmart employees.. as long as the shoplifter was only fleeing and not attacking them. Security cam footage should straighten that out.


The 2nd one not so cut-and-dry... The deputy has a right to defend himself...

As KTRK reports, authorities claim one of the women "hit the deputy with her purse" before the group ran off into the store's parking lot and got into their car.

"At that point, the deputy opened the door and commanded the driver to stop," Deputy Thomas Gilliland told the news agency. "She put it in drive, revving forward, dragging the deputy. The deputy discharged his weapon. The vehicle then fled," he continued.

JRNYMAN wrote:... How long are we going to sit idly by and allow this evil empire to continue to grow ... ?

This is an easy one - stop shopping there! And if shoplifters don't want any consequences, whatever they may be, then don't shoplift there. Or better yet, don't shoplift at anywhere at all.

It's kinda like a TV. If you don't like the program, change the channel or turn it off.


later~

I don't have any sympathy for shoplifters.

KenTheDude wrote:I don't have any sympathy for shoplifters.

Me either. They put themselves at a risk of anything happening, like what has been described above.

I can empathize a little for people that do it, if they're stealing baby formula or something like that, but not for any other reason.

My biggest problem is that some of the products I use are seemingly WalMart-exclusive. I don't know if it's because they purchase the rights to the products or what, but lately I'm finding more and more name brands that are suddenly disappearing from other stores and are suddenly only found at WalMart. It's disturbing.

Jonny B wrote:My biggest problem is that some of the products I use are seemingly WalMart-exclusive. I don't know if it's because they purchase the rights to the products or what, but lately I'm finding more and more name brands that are suddenly disappearing from other stores and are suddenly only found at WalMart. It's disturbing.

And that's called a monopoly. The situation with WM becoming as big as they have and continue to grow is that it puts them in the position of controlling the entire market - which is exactly what they are shooting for. I'm not speculating - I worked for them for 2.5 years in management and can tell you firsthand their goal is to completely dominate the retail consumer goods market and they are well on their way to doing so.

The waiting list for companies to get their product on WalMart's shelves is a long one. Every product in every store is closely monitored for its performance and if no sales are logged for 45 consecutive days, a message is generated and sent to the dept. head directing them to assign a "Clearance" tag and price to the item and to pull any remaining items from the shelf the following week. Within a week or so after that, a new item will arrive to take its place. This happens every day at every store. And due to their size and subsequent distribution, a company's entire future can literally be made or ruined by WalMart's decision to carry or drop a product. If you are lucky enough to get your new product on the shelf, your very first order from WalMart is 10,000 units/cases (depending on product's packaging) just to fill your spot on the shelf with an automatically generated re-order of 4,600 units/cases a week later. And, if your product shows even mild success in sales, you're set.
However, if you piss someone off or don't comply with a request for you to sell your product to them at a lower price and you decline, your product could be off the shelf within a week. I don't know very many companies who could lose a 4,600 location account and still survive and if they were big enough to survive, you would most assuredly be paying more for the product almost immediately. This kind of thing goes on in this company every single day and there's little that can be done unfortunately.

JRNYMAN wrote:

Jonny B wrote:My biggest problem is that some of the products I use are seemingly WalMart-exclusive. I don't know if it's because they purchase the rights to the products or what, but lately I'm finding more and more name brands that are suddenly disappearing from other stores and are suddenly only found at WalMart. It's disturbing.

And that's called a monopoly. The situation with WM becoming as big as they have and continue to grow is that it puts them in the position of controlling the entire market - which is exactly what they are shooting for. I'm not speculating - I worked for them for 2.5 years in management and can tell you firsthand their goal is to completely dominate the retail consumer goods market and they are well on their way to doing so.

The waiting list for companies to get their product on WalMart's shelves is a long one. Every product in every store is closely monitored for its performance and if no sales are logged for 45 consecutive days, a message is generated and sent to the dept. head directing them to assign a "Clearance" tag and price to the item and to pull any remaining items from the shelf the following week. Within a week or so after that, a new item will arrive to take its place. This happens every day at every store. And due to their size and subsequent distribution, a company's entire future can literally be made or ruined by WalMart's decision to carry or drop a product. If you are lucky enough to get your new product on the shelf, your very first order from WalMart is 10,000 units/cases (depending on product's packaging) just to fill your spot on the shelf with an automatically generated re-order of 4,600 units/cases a week later. And, if your product shows even mild success in sales, you're set.
However, if you piss someone off or don't comply with a request for you to sell your product to them at a lower price and you decline, your product could be off the shelf within a week. I don't know very many companies who could lose a 4,600 location account and still survive and if they were big enough to survive, you would most assuredly be paying more for the product almost immediately. This kind of thing goes on in this company every single day and there's little that can be done unfortunately.

My Dad used to be a bread vendor at one point and the whole company seemed to revolve around making sure Wal-Mart remained on their list of accounts. It's crazy.

Tell you one thing though...their meat and produce sucks. Wal-Mart built a location behind the grocery store I work for thinking they could drive us out of business. Instead, they shifted the entire town consumer population to our side of town, and when the consumers discovered how bad Wal-Mart's perishables were, it gave us more business. The money we lost on grocery was double-made up for in perishables.

Wow. Walmart employees don't carry guns here. And as for the deputy if she is dragging me and trying to run over me with a car it is a weapon of its own and I would shoot at them too! Where is this place again that the employees have to shoot shoplifters? Must be some neighborhood!

By the way, have you ever worked at Walmart? You sound like an ex employee. I say shop local shops when you can. I buy produce and meat at Hays. I buy other things from local stores as well. If you don't want a monopoly share the wealth when shopping. Unfortunately most folks like me are poor as church mice and the sales there are what they can afford most of the time.

artist4perry wrote: Where is this place again that the employees have to shoot shoplifters? Must be some neighborhood!

WalMart emp's aren't allowed to carry any kind of weapon other than pepper spray. The deputy who shot and killed the woman was fearing for his life and therefore used deadly force. However, if he had followed company policy he wouldn't have been in that situation. Asset protection associates are not supposed to persue suspected shoplifters. They may observe the suspect to ascertain their method of transportation away from the store and get a license plate number if possible.

artist4perry wrote:By the way, have you ever worked at Walmart? You sound like an ex employee.

You're joking, right? I mean.... you did see my above post where I stated that I was a manager for them for over 2 years? And, don't get me wrong... I didn't leave the company with a grudge nor was I disgruntled. I just finally realized that no matter how hard I worked and no matter how much I did for the company, it would never be enough - it's not allowed to be. The corporate psychology is that in order to maximize profits, every associate must be challenged to do more than they thought they possibly could. They believe that kind of work ethic builds character in people and helps them to achieve new heights. As soon as an associate meets what was expected of them today, their expectations are raised. I was in the unique position of doing what I really like to do - teach and work unsupervised. When I worked there, the economy was booming and they were opening supercenters like crazy. I got lucky and impressed one of the reg. managers who just happened to be the person who oversaw the store build-outs and openings. He liked me and offered me a position on one of the opening teams working graveyard - my favorite shift! So, I taught new people how to stock a 200,000 sq. ft. store while also getting it ready to open. Each opening team worked at a store for 3 weeks and then moved on to the next one.

I have to respectably disagree here. Walmart is not to blame for these shootings. While they've had 2 shootings in a short time, look how many stores there are nationwide. If that many stores were privately owned by other companies and sold similar items, I promise you'd have a shooting here or there also. You could say the same thing about a McDonald's being at fault if an employee in one of their restaurants snapped and shot someone. To me, that's like saying guns are responsible for shootings. PEOPLE are responsible.

When I was a manager of three departments in Lowe's years back, there were classes and tests that the security guards (can't recall their title for them) had to watch and take. They were all well informed of what was acceptable and not acceptable conduct. I would bet my bottom dollar that Walmart has the same training for their employees.

It's the employee who is at fault here. JMHO

G.I.Jim wrote:I have to respectably disagree here. Walmart is not to blame for these shootings. While they've had 2 shootings in a short time, look how many stores there are nationwide. If that many stores were privately owned by other companies and sold similar items, I promise you'd have a shooting here or there also. You could say the same thing about a McDonald's being at fault if an employee in one of their restaurants snapped and shot someone. To me, that's like saying guns are responsible for shootings. PEOPLE are responsible.

When I was a manager of three departments in Lowe's years back, there were classes and tests that the security guards (can't recall their title for them) had to watch and take. They were all well informed of what was acceptable and not acceptable conduct. I would bet my bottom dollar that Walmart has the same training for their employees.

It's the employee who is at fault here. JMHO

I agree. I also agree with shooting the ass off of someone stealing my stuff. As for the other incident where the guy was either suffocated or whatever else happened to him, that caused his death. Don't fucking steal. Had he not stolen from the store, he wouldn't have been subdued in such a manner. People need to reintroduce themselves to personal accountability.

G.I.Jim wrote:I have to respectably disagree here. Walmart is not to blame for these shootings. While they've had 2 shootings in a short time, look how many stores there are nationwide. If that many stores were privately owned by other companies and sold similar items, I promise you'd have a shooting here or there also. You could say the same thing about a McDonald's being at fault if an employee in one of their restaurants snapped and shot someone. To me, that's like saying guns are responsible for shootings. PEOPLE are responsible.

When I was a manager of three departments in Lowe's years back, there were classes and tests that the security guards (can't recall their title for them) had to watch and take. They were all well informed of what was acceptable and not acceptable conduct. I would bet my bottom dollar that Walmart has the same training for their employees.

It's the employee who is at fault here. JMHO

I think my take and stand on this situation has been misunderstood and if so, it's my fault for not being clearer.
I agree with everyone here that shoplifting is unacceptable no matter the reason. There just isn't any justification for it. That said, I also believe there is a right way and tons of wrong ways to deal with a situation and apparently WalMart is not leaning toward the right way as evidenced by the recent deaths which occurred at the hands of their associates on their property. You're absolutely right, Jim, they do indeed have a training program for their Asset Protection associates. It lasts 6 hours. In addition to their comprehensive training on how to approach, deal with, and apprehend shoplifters, they also fill out all their paperwork, watch videos about the history of the company, 8 reasons why unions are not good for business, and what to do in case of an emergency. They also take a tour of the store and meet all the department heads. During the hour or so that's actually devoted to training for their position, they are taught that they are never to try to apprehend a suspected shoplifter once they have left the store and only go outside to get a description of their vehicle and license plate if possible. The next thing they are to do is call the police and LET THEM ENFORCE THE LAW!
My complaint in my OP is that the company is not training these people to do their jobs correctly and it's getting people killed! Let's say the roles were reversed and in each of the cases an employee was the one killed. Had they followed procedure and been taught the very real dangers that exist when confronting shoplifters outside the store, things might be different.

Here's another item of interest that's going to make your head explode and I swear I'm not making this up or exaggerating the numbers. Ready...??
Each store is EXPECTED to show a loss due to theft based on quarterly sales projections which are derived from the demographic of the particular store. This specific loss is a completely separate category from spoilage, damage, etc. I can't remember the exact formula used to generate the figure but it's huge. An average store in an area with a low crime rate, higher percentage of owned property than rented, etc. will have an acceptable Theft Shrinkage Index (TSI) of right around $1 Mil. The store I started at was one of the first Super-Supercenters with 250,00 sq. ft. of retail space in a very nice area and our 1st year's TSI was $1.7 Mil! No Shit! Another little known tidbit about them is THEY WON'T PROSECUTE for thefts of $25.00 or less! Fact!
The point I'm making here is they have provisions and programs already in place to absorb a fair amount of the theft they already know is going to happen. That being the case, they need to train their people appropriately and remind them often that they are not the police and that should they take the law into their own hands, they can and will be prosecuted accordingly.

Working overnights you get a lot of shaky looking people wandering the aisles for long periods at a time presumably scoping out the situation and taking mental notes. I never paid too much attention to them after alerting AP to their presence and let those guys follow them via 158 High Res, color cameras all of which are connected to DVR's. (Yeah, one of the things about WM being so big and having sooooooooo much $$ is they have the best of the best when it comes to anything computer and/or surveillance related!) The ones I would personally keep track of were minors who try to steal alcohol. That one was very important to me and I always got involved whenever any of the AP team and/or mgmt. team was notified.

Rick wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I have to respectably disagree here. Walmart is not to blame for these shootings. While they've had 2 shootings in a short time, look how many stores there are nationwide. If that many stores were privately owned by other companies and sold similar items, I promise you'd have a shooting here or there also. You could say the same thing about a McDonald's being at fault if an employee in one of their restaurants snapped and shot someone. To me, that's like saying guns are responsible for shootings. PEOPLE are responsible.

When I was a manager of three departments in Lowe's years back, there were classes and tests that the security guards (can't recall their title for them) had to watch and take. They were all well informed of what was acceptable and not acceptable conduct. I would bet my bottom dollar that Walmart has the same training for their employees.

It's the employee who is at fault here. JMHO

I agree. I also agree with shooting the ass off of someone stealing my stuff. As for the other incident where the guy was either suffocated or whatever else happened to him, that caused his death. Don't fucking steal. Had he not stolen from the store, he wouldn't have been subdued in such a manner. People need to reintroduce themselves to personal accountability.

I understand your point Rick, I really do. And when it comes to your own personal stuff, you have the right to defend your property - to a certain extent. In the cases cited here, the one thing that's being missed or ignored..... we'll go with missed since I can see that vein in the middle of your forehead starting to pulsate and your eyes are getting just a bit glossed over... Let's see, where was I? Oh.... The shoplifters aren't stealing the property of the individuals WM employs to protect their merchandise. They are stealing from a corporation. You can't exact justice on someone who isn't stealing from you personally. The law only allows so much before the line is crossed between doing what is acceptable and what is seen as vigilante justice. It's a fine line and in situations like confronting a shoplifter emotions and adrenaline run high and things happen fast especially when the thief decides to get physical or even just aggressive and agitated. But one of the things that absolutely must happen is the Asset Protection, Security Guard, etc. can not allow personal feelings and/or emotions to enter into the equation because as soon as they do, it becomes personal and at the end of the day when everything is said and done, it's not personal. They didn't even know the guard existed until he/she confronted them about the theft. Do ya kinda get what I'm trying to explain, Rick?

Anyone caught stealing should have their ass shot off. I don't know if this law still stands in Texas, but it used to be if someone were caught stealing from you they were fair game and if you and your rifle killed the beast, well, that was all.....no charges. The world is turning and if you lame up some poor mutha fucka, caught stealing, all they will do is turn around and sue you for laming them up.

JRNYMAN wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I have to respectably disagree here. Walmart is not to blame for these shootings. While they've had 2 shootings in a short time, look how many stores there are nationwide. If that many stores were privately owned by other companies and sold similar items, I promise you'd have a shooting here or there also. You could say the same thing about a McDonald's being at fault if an employee in one of their restaurants snapped and shot someone. To me, that's like saying guns are responsible for shootings. PEOPLE are responsible.

When I was a manager of three departments in Lowe's years back, there were classes and tests that the security guards (can't recall their title for them) had to watch and take. They were all well informed of what was acceptable and not acceptable conduct. I would bet my bottom dollar that Walmart has the same training for their employees.

It's the employee who is at fault here. JMHO

I think my take and stand on this situation has been misunderstood and if so, it's my fault for not being clearer.
I agree with everyone here that shoplifting is unacceptable no matter the reason. There just isn't any justification for it. That said, I also believe there is a right way and tons of wrong ways to deal with a situation and apparently WalMart is not leaning toward the right way as evidenced by the recent deaths which occurred at the hands of their associates on their property. You're absolutely right, Jim, they do indeed have a training program for their Asset Protection associates. It lasts 6 hours. In addition to their comprehensive training on how to approach, deal with, and apprehend shoplifters, they also fill out all their paperwork, watch videos about the history of the company, 8 reasons why unions are not good for business, and what to do in case of an emergency. They also take a tour of the store and meet all the department heads. During the hour or so that's actually devoted to training for their position, they are taught that they are never to try to apprehend a suspected shoplifter once they have left the store and only go outside to get a description of their vehicle and license plate if possible. The next thing they are to do is call the police and LET THEM ENFORCE THE LAW!
My complaint in my OP is that the company is not training these people to do their jobs correctly and it's getting people killed! Let's say the roles were reversed and in each of the cases an employee was the one killed. Had they followed procedure and been taught the very real dangers that exist when confronting shoplifters outside the store, things might be different.

Here's another item of interest that's going to make your head explode and I swear I'm not making this up or exaggerating the numbers. Ready...??
Each store is EXPECTED to show a loss due to theft based on quarterly sales projections which are derived from the demographic of the particular store. This specific loss is a completely separate category from spoilage, damage, etc. I can't remember the exact formula used to generate the figure but it's huge. An average store in an area with a low crime rate, higher percentage of owned property than rented, etc. will have an acceptable Theft Shrinkage Index (TSI) of right around $1 Mil. The store I started at was one of the first Super-Supercenters with 250,00 sq. ft. of retail space in a very nice area and our 1st year's TSI was $1.7 Mil! No Shit! Another little known tidbit about them is THEY WON'T PROSECUTE for thefts of $25.00 or less! Fact!
The point I'm making here is they have provisions and programs already in place to absorb a fair amount of the theft they already know is going to happen. That being the case, they need to train their people appropriately and remind them often that they are not the police and that should they take the law into their own hands, they can and will be prosecuted accordingly.

Working overnights you get a lot of shaky looking people wandering the aisles for long periods at a time presumably scoping out the situation and taking mental notes. I never paid too much attention to them after alerting AP to their presence and let those guys follow them via 158 High Res, color cameras all of which are connected to DVR's. (Yeah, one of the things about WM being so big and having sooooooooo much $$ is they have the best of the best when it comes to anything computer and/or surveillance related!) The ones I would personally keep track of were minors who try to steal alcohol. That one was very important to me and I always got involved whenever any of the AP team and/or mgmt. team was notified.

It seems to me that this thread really doesn't have anything to do with the deaths of two people. It has to do with your hatred of Walmart. So obviously you hate corporate success, believe in unions, and took offense to your training. That's all you had to say.

JRNYMAN wrote:

Rick wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I have to respectably disagree here. Walmart is not to blame for these shootings. While they've had 2 shootings in a short time, look how many stores there are nationwide. If that many stores were privately owned by other companies and sold similar items, I promise you'd have a shooting here or there also. You could say the same thing about a McDonald's being at fault if an employee in one of their restaurants snapped and shot someone. To me, that's like saying guns are responsible for shootings. PEOPLE are responsible.

When I was a manager of three departments in Lowe's years back, there were classes and tests that the security guards (can't recall their title for them) had to watch and take. They were all well informed of what was acceptable and not acceptable conduct. I would bet my bottom dollar that Walmart has the same training for their employees.

It's the employee who is at fault here. JMHO

I agree. I also agree with shooting the ass off of someone stealing my stuff. As for the other incident where the guy was either suffocated or whatever else happened to him, that caused his death. Don't fucking steal. Had he not stolen from the store, he wouldn't have been subdued in such a manner. People need to reintroduce themselves to personal accountability.

I understand your point Rick, I really do. And when it comes to your own personal stuff, you have the right to defend your property - to a certain extent. In the cases cited here, the one thing that's being missed or ignored..... we'll go with missed since I can see that vein in the middle of your forehead starting to pulsate and your eyes are getting just a bit glossed over... Let's see, where was I? Oh.... The shoplifters aren't stealing the property of the individuals WM employs to protect their merchandise. They are stealing from a corporation. You can't exact justice on someone who isn't stealing from you personally. The law only allows so much before the line is crossed between doing what is acceptable and what is seen as vigilante justice. It's a fine line and in situations like confronting a shoplifter emotions and adrenaline run high and things happen fast especially when the thief decides to get physical or even just aggressive and agitated. But one of the things that absolutely must happen is the Asset Protection, Security Guard, etc. can not allow personal feelings and/or emotions to enter into the equation because as soon as they do, it becomes personal and at the end of the day when everything is said and done, it's not personal. They didn't even know the guard existed until he/she confronted them about the theft. Do ya kinda get what I'm trying to explain, Rick?

Yes, but in each case presented here, the circumstances are extenuating. The one where the off-duty officer shot the driver was in self defense. It was said that the off-duty officer wasn't supposed to pursue the shoplifters, only follow safely enough to get a license plate. But you have to understand, this person effects law and order to earn a paycheck in real life, so I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible to let a criminal just walk away. So that leads to the rest, where he had to shoot in self defense.

The other case is more sketchy. They said they were just detaining the shoplifter and, maybe one of them weighed like 400 lbs or something, because they must have suffocated this person. It was reported that blood was coming from the nose and the mouth.

Certainly, both deaths could have been prevented, and two shoplifters could have been returned to society to lead exemplary, productive lives.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm all for the good samaritan.

Rick wrote:

JRNYMAN wrote:

Rick wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I have to respectably disagree here. Walmart is not to blame for these shootings. While they've had 2 shootings in a short time, look how many stores there are nationwide. If that many stores were privately owned by other companies and sold similar items, I promise you'd have a shooting here or there also. You could say the same thing about a McDonald's being at fault if an employee in one of their restaurants snapped and shot someone. To me, that's like saying guns are responsible for shootings. PEOPLE are responsible.

When I was a manager of three departments in Lowe's years back, there were classes and tests that the security guards (can't recall their title for them) had to watch and take. They were all well informed of what was acceptable and not acceptable conduct. I would bet my bottom dollar that Walmart has the same training for their employees.

It's the employee who is at fault here. JMHO

I agree. I also agree with shooting the ass off of someone stealing my stuff. As for the other incident where the guy was either suffocated or whatever else happened to him, that caused his death. Don't fucking steal. Had he not stolen from the store, he wouldn't have been subdued in such a manner. People need to reintroduce themselves to personal accountability.

I understand your point Rick, I really do. And when it comes to your own personal stuff, you have the right to defend your property - to a certain extent. In the cases cited here, the one thing that's being missed or ignored..... we'll go with missed since I can see that vein in the middle of your forehead starting to pulsate and your eyes are getting just a bit glossed over... Let's see, where was I? Oh.... The shoplifters aren't stealing the property of the individuals WM employs to protect their merchandise. They are stealing from a corporation. You can't exact justice on someone who isn't stealing from you personally. The law only allows so much before the line is crossed between doing what is acceptable and what is seen as vigilante justice. It's a fine line and in situations like confronting a shoplifter emotions and adrenaline run high and things happen fast especially when the thief decides to get physical or even just aggressive and agitated. But one of the things that absolutely must happen is the Asset Protection, Security Guard, etc. can not allow personal feelings and/or emotions to enter into the equation because as soon as they do, it becomes personal and at the end of the day when everything is said and done, it's not personal. They didn't even know the guard existed until he/she confronted them about the theft. Do ya kinda get what I'm trying to explain, Rick?

Yes, but in each case presented here, the circumstances are extenuating. The one where the off-duty officer shot the driver was in self defense. It was said that the off-duty officer wasn't supposed to pursue the shoplifters, only follow safely enough to get a license plate. But you have to understand, this person effects law and order to earn a paycheck in real life, so I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible to let a criminal just walk away. So that leads to the rest, where he had to shoot in self defense.

The other case is more sketchy. They said they were just detaining the shoplifter and, maybe one of them weighed like 400 lbs or something, because they must have suffocated this person. It was reported that blood was coming from the nose and the mouth.

Certainly, both deaths could have been prevented, and two shoplifters could have been returned to society to lead exemplary, productive lives.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm all for the good samaritan.

I've always said this country should enforce the death penalty for crimes as simple as traffic offenses. Now, THAT would show 'em! I bet you we wouldn't have any of those pesky illegal alien issues or shoplifting or ....

JRNYMAN wrote:

Rick wrote:

JRNYMAN wrote:

Rick wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I have to respectably disagree here. Walmart is not to blame for these shootings. While they've had 2 shootings in a short time, look how many stores there are nationwide. If that many stores were privately owned by other companies and sold similar items, I promise you'd have a shooting here or there also. You could say the same thing about a McDonald's being at fault if an employee in one of their restaurants snapped and shot someone. To me, that's like saying guns are responsible for shootings. PEOPLE are responsible.

When I was a manager of three departments in Lowe's years back, there were classes and tests that the security guards (can't recall their title for them) had to watch and take. They were all well informed of what was acceptable and not acceptable conduct. I would bet my bottom dollar that Walmart has the same training for their employees.

It's the employee who is at fault here. JMHO

I agree. I also agree with shooting the ass off of someone stealing my stuff. As for the other incident where the guy was either suffocated or whatever else happened to him, that caused his death. Don't fucking steal. Had he not stolen from the store, he wouldn't have been subdued in such a manner. People need to reintroduce themselves to personal accountability.

I understand your point Rick, I really do. And when it comes to your own personal stuff, you have the right to defend your property - to a certain extent. In the cases cited here, the one thing that's being missed or ignored..... we'll go with missed since I can see that vein in the middle of your forehead starting to pulsate and your eyes are getting just a bit glossed over... Let's see, where was I? Oh.... The shoplifters aren't stealing the property of the individuals WM employs to protect their merchandise. They are stealing from a corporation. You can't exact justice on someone who isn't stealing from you personally. The law only allows so much before the line is crossed between doing what is acceptable and what is seen as vigilante justice. It's a fine line and in situations like confronting a shoplifter emotions and adrenaline run high and things happen fast especially when the thief decides to get physical or even just aggressive and agitated. But one of the things that absolutely must happen is the Asset Protection, Security Guard, etc. can not allow personal feelings and/or emotions to enter into the equation because as soon as they do, it becomes personal and at the end of the day when everything is said and done, it's not personal. They didn't even know the guard existed until he/she confronted them about the theft. Do ya kinda get what I'm trying to explain, Rick?

Yes, but in each case presented here, the circumstances are extenuating. The one where the off-duty officer shot the driver was in self defense. It was said that the off-duty officer wasn't supposed to pursue the shoplifters, only follow safely enough to get a license plate. But you have to understand, this person effects law and order to earn a paycheck in real life, so I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible to let a criminal just walk away. So that leads to the rest, where he had to shoot in self defense.

The other case is more sketchy. They said they were just detaining the shoplifter and, maybe one of them weighed like 400 lbs or something, because they must have suffocated this person. It was reported that blood was coming from the nose and the mouth.

Certainly, both deaths could have been prevented, and two shoplifters could have been returned to society to lead exemplary, productive lives.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm all for the good samaritan.

I've always said this country should enforce the death penalty for crimes as simple as traffic offenses. Now, THAT would show 'em! I bet you we wouldn't have any of those pesky illegal alien issues or shoplifting or ....

No, I don't want anything like that, but I just don't have a lot of sympathy for law breaking people that find themselves in dire straits as a result of their actions. If I'm flying down the road in my truck and because of my excessive speed, do some awful wrong, I will take my punishment, whatever it is.

JRNYMAN wrote:

artist4perry wrote: Where is this place again that the employees have to shoot shoplifters? Must be some neighborhood!

WalMart emp's aren't allowed to carry any kind of weapon other than pepper spray. The deputy who shot and killed the woman was fearing for his life and therefore used deadly force. However, if he had followed company policy he wouldn't have been in that situation. Asset protection associates are not supposed to persue suspected shoplifters. They may observe the suspect to ascertain their method of transportation away from the store and get a license plate number if possible.

artist4perry wrote:By the way, have you ever worked at Walmart? You sound like an ex employee.

You're joking, right? I mean.... you did see my above post where I stated that I was a manager for them for over 2 years? And, don't get me wrong... I didn't leave the company with a grudge nor was I disgruntled. I just finally realized that no matter how hard I worked and no matter how much I did for the company, it would never be enough - it's not allowed to be. The corporate psychology is that in order to maximize profits, every associate must be challenged to do more than they thought they possibly could. They believe that kind of work ethic builds character in people and helps them to achieve new heights. As soon as an associate meets what was expected of them today, their expectations are raised. I was in the unique position of doing what I really like to do - teach and work unsupervised. When I worked there, the economy was booming and they were opening supercenters like crazy. I got lucky and impressed one of the reg. managers who just happened to be the person who oversaw the store build-outs and openings. He liked me and offered me a position on one of the opening teams working graveyard - my favorite shift! So, I taught new people how to stock a 200,000 sq. ft. store while also getting it ready to open. Each opening team worked at a store for 3 weeks and then moved on to the next one.

No I didn't see that you had worked there, but it sounded like it anyway. I know people who have worked for them and were quite angry with them later. I knew an art student who did a whole anti-Walmart art show. But aren't most low paying jobs like that? They work you to death and you never can get ahead. I did those types of jobs and when it started taking a major toll on my health I went back to college and became an art teacher...Never looked back and wish I had done this a long time ago.

JRNYMAN wrote:I understand what you're saying, but I'm all for the good samaritan.

I've always said this country should enforce the death penalty for crimes as simple as traffic offenses. Now, THAT would show 'em! I bet you we wouldn't have any of those pesky illegal alien issues or shoplifting or .... [/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Cv_8bhwQU