Walmart security guard shoots 'shoplifting' mother dead in parking lot as she tries to escape with t

[8tothe24]

Not one damn given!

 

[royal assassin]

ey yo, some y'all little ****** need to take heed: this **** could happen to anybody regardless of your color, creed, cock size or what have you like ol boy was saying a few posts up.  you ever been hungry?  you ever been so hungry you have a little bit of food you been nibblin on for a week and see a ad outside a restaurant that has a table set up for free samples but you cant bring your food inside so you hide it in a trash can so nobody take it?  i have.  i been there.  i stole from a grocery store, some lunchables some juice and **** and sat right outside the store and ate it like a dummy because i was ******g hungry.  it was my fault for being in that sitch, it was my fault for stealing, it was my fault on everything but if a cop woulda got me outside that store and shot me for being hungry that aint right.  she was on hard times, made a horrible decision and tried to flee.  some 'hero' who could have just made sure her plates was known and called somebody to go pick her up (like what happens 99 percent of the time) instead decides he gon try to jump inside her whip when she was obviously trying to just get out of there.  stupid decisions all around, but dont pretend dude is innocent in all this and dont pretend **** can't happen to you too.

 

[ag 47]

She shouldn't have been shoplifting. She put herself at risk because she tried to escape. Consequences come. 

***** please. Death is not a justifiable consequence for stealing some goddamn merchandise. This should've been resolved far differently.

 

[shoelyesses]

You my friend, are quite dense...

All Meth is saying is that, if you've been characterized as a "criminal" aka "because of your race", what good is your word? Who is going to believe that (stereotypical black woman)"[you] didn't hit [the] cop and then try to run him over"? It's their (law enforcement) word against (stereotypical black woman) yours--who do you think the public is going to believe, irrespective of the actual truths of the situation?
Sure in this situation we may have witnesses to corroborate the claim that one of the shoplifters swung at the security guard. But this junction is not important.
The real issue is whether the security guard was being truthful on the matter of almost being run over, which is what led to him firing his gun, and committing a homicide. That's the point of contention. There are two sides to every argument, but with one side demonized and pre-judged (because of race), the guard's word has effectively been taken as the gospel truth. If you (use obliviousness/blind to the fact to lowkey express prejudice and possibly racist viewpoint/mindset) can't see how very problematic this is, then you should really not be part of this specific discussion.(and possibly apart of the problem)
...

 

[ohmygosher]

I'm willing to bet that most of those defending this officer have broken the law themselves at one point or another.  I don't think anyone here would be okay with the police shooting college kids guilty of public intoxication.  If you're 19 years old, the cops come to break up a loud party, and you run out the back door so they don't catch you drinking, do you deserve to be shot in the back?  You committed a crime.  You ran.  I suppose you had it coming. 

Except I didn't hit a cop and then try to run him over.

Had you bothered to read the VERY next line, you'd see the response to this:

Excessive force?  No way!  "I swear I saw him reaching for his car keys!  I couldn't let that happen!"   "Running away?  No, he was running TOWARD me... with a broken beer bottle!"

You didn't hit the cop and try to run him over?  Maybe the cop says you did.  Hard to contradict him if you're considered a criminal.  Even harder to contradict him if you're dead. 

I did read the next line.

And I'll say it again. The difference is, I didn't hit a cop and then try to run him over.

There are no "what if's" with what I said.

You my friend, are quite dense...

All Meth is saying is that, if you've been characterized as a "criminal", what good is your word? Who is going to believe that "[you] didn't hit [the] cop and then try to run him over"? It's their (law enforcement) word against yours--who do you think the public is going to believe, irrespective of the actual truths of the situation?

Sure in this situation we may have witnesses to corroborate the claim that one of the shoplifters swung at the security guard. But this junction is not important.

The real issue is whether the security guard was being truthful on the matter of almost being run over, which is what led to him firing his gun, and committing a homicide. That's the point of contention. There are two sides to every argument, but with one side demonized and pre-judged, the guard's word has effectively been taken as the gospel truth. If you can't see how very problematic this is, then you should really not be part of this specific discussion.



...

So what happens if when the video is released it goes along with what the cop said?

 

[shoelyesses]

So what happens if when the video is released it goes along with what the cop said?

still wouldnt change the facts... or the underlying issue.... lets say she punched him.. pushed him to elude... and while he tried to apprehend her she sped off and he dove out to stop her... still wouldnt jsutify what he did.. and still wouldnt change the fact that had this been a white women he wouldnt have did nothing...

even in his tale of the story i saw nowehere where she was barreling at him like she was chasing down runaway dogs..

 

[superantigen]

I'm willing to bet that most of those defending this officer have broken the law themselves at one point or another.  I don't think anyone here would be okay with the police shooting college kids guilty of public intoxication.  If you're 19 years old, the cops come to break up a loud party, and you run out the back door so they don't catch you drinking, do you deserve to be shot in the back?  You committed a crime.  You ran.  I suppose you had it coming. 

Except I didn't hit a cop and then try to run him over.

Had you bothered to read the VERY next line, you'd see the response to this:

Excessive force?  No way!  "I swear I saw him reaching for his car keys!  I couldn't let that happen!"   "Running away?  No, he was running TOWARD me... with a broken beer bottle!"

You didn't hit the cop and try to run him over?  Maybe the cop says you did.  Hard to contradict him if you're considered a criminal.  Even harder to contradict him if you're dead. 

I did read the next line.


And I'll say it again. The difference is, I didn't hit a cop and then try to run him over.


There are no "what if's" with what I said.

You my friend, are quite dense...


All Meth is saying is that, if you've been characterized as a "criminal", what good is your word? Who is going to believe that "[you] didn't hit [the] cop and then try to run him over"? It's their (law enforcement) word against yours--who do you think the public is going to believe, irrespective of the actual truths of the situation?


Sure in this situation we may have witnesses to corroborate the claim that one of the shoplifters swung at the security guard. But this junction is not important.


The real issue is whether the security guard was being truthful on the matter of almost being run over, which is what led to him firing his gun, and committing a homicide. That's the point of contention. There are two sides to every argument, but with one side demonized and pre-judged, the guard's word has effectively been taken as the gospel truth. If you can't see how very problematic this is, then you should really not be part of this specific discussion.




...

So what happens if when the video is released it goes along with what the cop said?

Then we can assume with greater certainty that the security guard was telling the truth. No problem there.

There is, however, an equally likely chance that the tapes will show the opposite. Just keep that in mind.

In one of my earlier posts, I quoted several accounts that stated that the car was speeding AWAY from the cop. This revelation seems to be incongruent to the security guard's story of being afraid of being run over. How do you get run over when the car is speeding AWAY FROM YOU? And remember, these are from different other sources. So already we know that there is some level of deception going on. Now ask yourself, who has the most to gain in hiding the truth in this matter?




...

 

[ohmygosher]

So what happens if when the video is released it goes along with what the cop said?

still wouldnt change the facts... or the underlying issue.... lets say she punched him.. pushed him to elude... and while he tried to apprehend her she sped off and he dove out to stop her... still wouldnt jsutify what he did.. and still wouldnt change the fact that had this been a white women he wouldnt have did nothing...

even in his tale of the story i saw nowehere where she was barreling at him like she was chasing down runaway dogs..

What?

Are you serious?

 

[decemberlove]

Here's where we are:  the guy with the gun gets to decide who lives and who dies, and all he needs to do to justify pulling the trigger is to say "I was scared."  

It's pretty well established what people find "scary" in America.  If your appearance places you into that category, you're at risk.  The whole "if you're not doing anything wrong... you don't have to worry about being killed" argument is complete and utter garbage.  Tell that to Amadou Diallo.  Tell that to the children who were in that car.

What some of you probably mean to say is that if YOU aren't doing anything wrong, YOU don't have to worry about being killed.  You aren't going to be arrested for trying to "break in" to your own house.  You aren't going to be shot dead for being out "too late" in a gated community/sundown town.  That's reflective of your experience.  If only that were the case for everyone.


I'm willing to bet that most of those defending this officer have broken the law themselves at one point or another.  I don't think anyone here would be okay with the police shooting college kids guilty of public intoxication.  If you're 19 years old, the cops come to break up a loud party, and you run out the back door so they don't catch you drinking, do you deserve to be shot in the back?  You committed a crime.  You ran.  I suppose you had it coming. 

Excessive force?  No way!  "I swear I saw him reaching for his car keys!  I couldn't let that happen!"   "Running away?  No, he was running TOWARD me... with a broken beer bottle!"


We're not talking, in this case, about "racial profiling" with respect to guilt or innocence.  No one's defending the actions of the shoplifters.  

Here's the problem:  a private security officer decided 1) that these unarmed shoplifters presented a mortal danger   2) that no one in that car was worthy of moral consideration.  You're only fooling yourself if you consider it impossible for race to have played a subconscious role in either of those two determinations. 



Do you feel safer living and potentially raising children in a society where 1) shoplifting occasionally takes place  or  2) armed vigilantes shoot on fright? 

Going past all of this..if the officer turns out to be black then what's everyone's stand? It's shaky ground and one dimensional to assume that I am safe if I don't do anything wrong. I decide to remain anonymous on the internet but what if I was black? What if I wasn't? Nobody knows me here except a few of my friends so to blatantly put words in my mouth isn't a fair case. I am very much aware that minorities are subject to this kind of abuse.

And if the officer was black then would it be racial profiling? Then through learned culture he out of anyone would understand best how is people would act?

The point we're arguing here is if it was excessive or not. If this officer were to be black, which is unlikely considering this is such huge news, I doubt he would be scared of "his own kind". Until further evidence shows up we don't know anything so to automatically scream "IT'S CUZ THEY WERE BLACK" isn't fair to the officer nor the victims.

If public intoxication is against the law then citizens are expected to abide. Does it happen? No. But offenders are still breaking the law and on top of that resisting arrest? Meth have you ever been in the field and know the perspectives that an officer has? Anything can happen and if the women were to cooperate everything would have been fine and dandy.

You could definitely say that the officer was in the wrong and I can't do anything to change your mind but if you tell me race was a large factor in the pulling of the trigger, you're accusing this man of cold-blooded murder based on RACE which I refuse to believe. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in this country and this forum (I'm hoping since you stress all topics to be within the borders of the law). The thieves however are not innocent...if they were to go to court they would be guilty. Based on the information we have as of today I'm going to try to connect what few pieces of the puzzle we have.

In essence, you're accusing me and others that we are looking at this situation with narrow minds but that's not the case.

The last two questions you pose are in violation of the "black and white" mentality that I supposedly had. With eutopia unattainable I would live in a society where shoplifters cooperate with the police instead of running which wouldn't resort to any sort of violence.

 

[Jordan8]

she should have just killed the cop and saved NT the bandwidth

cause we know " Banned Serial Thief Kills Cop While Fleeing Wal Mart Parking Lot" wouldnt get a second look.

Do we even know the police dude wasnt black yet?

 

[deleted]

she should have just killed the cop and saved NT the bandwidth
cause we know " Banned Serial Thief Kills Cop While Fleeing Wal Mart Parking Lot" wouldnt get a second look.
Do we even know the police dude wasnt black yet?

There's a picture floating around of a black man that is supposedly the officer.

Though, I'm not sure of the legitimacy of that yet.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

5 pages later and people are still ignoring the fact the woman who got shot wasn't driving.

 

[superantigen]

Here's where we are:  the guy with the gun gets to decide who lives and who dies, and all he needs to do to justify pulling the trigger is to say "I was scared."  

It's pretty well established what people find "scary" in America.  If your appearance places you into that category, you're at risk.  The whole "if you're not doing anything wrong... you don't have to worry about being killed" argument is complete and utter garbage.  Tell that to Amadou Diallo.  Tell that to the children who were in that car.

What some of you probably mean to say is that if YOU aren't doing anything wrong, YOU don't have to worry about being killed.  You aren't going to be arrested for trying to "break in" to your own house.  You aren't going to be shot dead for being out "too late" in a gated community/sundown town.  That's reflective of your experience.  If only that were the case for everyone.


I'm willing to bet that most of those defending this officer have broken the law themselves at one point or another.  I don't think anyone here would be okay with the police shooting college kids guilty of public intoxication.  If you're 19 years old, the cops come to break up a loud party, and you run out the back door so they don't catch you drinking, do you deserve to be shot in the back?  You committed a crime.  You ran.  I suppose you had it coming. 

Excessive force?  No way!  "I swear I saw him reaching for his car keys!  I couldn't let that happen!"   "Running away?  No, he was running TOWARD me... with a broken beer bottle!"


We're not talking, in this case, about "racial profiling" with respect to guilt or innocence.  No one's defending the actions of the shoplifters.  

Here's the problem:  a private security officer decided 1) that these unarmed shoplifters presented a mortal danger   2) that no one in that car was worthy of moral consideration.  You're only fooling yourself if you consider it impossible for race to have played a subconscious role in either of those two determinations. 



Do you feel safer living and potentially raising children in a society where 1) shoplifting occasionally takes place  or  2) armed vigilantes shoot on fright? 

Going past all of this..if the officer turns out to be black then what's everyone's stand? It's shaky ground and one dimensional to assume that I am safe if I don't do anything wrong. I decide to remain anonymous on the internet but what if I was black? What if I wasn't? Nobody knows me here except a few of my friends so to blatantly put words in my mouth isn't a fair case. I am very much aware that minorities are subject to this kind of abuse.

And if the officer was black then would it be racial profiling? Then through learned culture he out of anyone would understand best how is people would act?

The point we're arguing here is if it was excessive or not. If this officer were to be black, which is unlikely considering this is such huge news, I doubt he would be scared of "his own kind". Until further evidence shows up we don't know anything so to automatically scream "IT'S CUZ THEY WERE BLACK" isn't fair to the officer nor the victims.

If public intoxication is against the law then citizens are expected to abide. Does it happen? No. But offenders are still breaking the law and on top of that resisting arrest? Meth have you ever been in the field and know the perspectives that an officer has? Anything can happen and if the women were to cooperate everything would have been fine and dandy.

You could definitely say that the officer was in the wrong and I can't do anything to change your mind but if you tell me race was a large factor in the pulling of the trigger, you're accusing this man of cold-blooded murder which I refuse to believe. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in this country and this forum (I'm hoping since you stress all topics to be within the borders of the law). The thieves however are not innocent...if they were to go to court they would be guilty. Based on the information we have as of today I'm going to try to connect what few pieces of the puzzle we have.

In essence, you're accusing me and others that we are looking at this situation with narrow minds but that's not the case.

The last two questions you pose are in violation of the "black and white" mentality that I supposedly had. With eutopia unattainable I would live in a society where shoplifters cooperate with the police instead of running which wouldn't resort to any sort of violence.

Yes, even if the officer were black an argument for racial profiling could be made. Profiling based on race is very institutionalized in law enforcement, just as race in america is institutionalized. It's very possible for someone may be a member of a particular race and not identify with the values and struggles of said race.

Personally I have no bone/bet in this specific topic (racial profiling) as it relates to the incident, so I'm just going to keep my mouth shut on the matter.

What I will gladly box with, however, are statements like this:

You could definitely say that the officer was in the wrong and I can't do anything to change your mind but if you tell me race was a large factor in the pulling of the trigger, you're accusing this man of cold-blooded murder which I refuse to believe. [COLOR=#red] Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in this country and this forum (I'm hoping since you stress all topics to be within the borders of the law). The thieves however are not innocent...if they were to go to court they would be guilty.[/COLOR] Based on the information we have as of today I'm going to try to connect what few pieces of the puzzle we have.

If you truly believe that "everyone is innocent until proven guilty", then you wouldn't be vilifying the dead victim all the while venerating, implicitly, the security guard.

They were guilty of theft; one of both theft and trespassing; and someone of theft and assault. You have their identities, you have them on camera, you more than likely have their license plate recorded--take them to a court of law and JUDGE/SENTENCE them in a manner that is fair, befitting for their crimes, and exemplary of our Justice system. Shooting to kill IS NOT a plausible answer to their crimes.

"Ohh well he feared for his life"...he wasn't supposed to be chasing after them in the first place. Bad decisions were made all around. Given the past of the victim, her poor decisions are to be expected, and she was going to pay for her criminality and her stupidity. This should have been done in a court of law, however; judged and sentenced by the community/her peers for her crimes against the community/her peers. Killing her, knowingly or otherwise, robbed her of a FAIR trial and robbed the community of its responsibility. Vigilante-ism is not justice.

What's the off-duty cop's excuse for his bad decisions? This is a man of authority. A man entrusted by the community to act rationally and make responsible decisions. Unloading clips in the parking lot of shopping center into a car full of children is neither rational nor responsible. Is this really behavior that is becoming of a police officer? You want this type of individual to be cop in your neighborhood?

He ****** up big time--plain and simple. He was in the wrong and he deserves to be punished.




...

 

[ohmygosher]

5 pages later and people are still ignoring the fact the woman who got shot wasn't driving.

Maybe he was shooting at the driver from the side and she ducked?

Maybe he missed?

Not sure what you're trying to get at.

 

[Jordan8]

Racial profiling?

The ***** was banned from every Wal Mart In the world.

 

[blakep267]

Maybe he was shooting at the driver from the side and she ducked?
Maybe he missed?not sure what your trying to get at.

thats reckless on the cops part tho. If he didnt have a clear shot at the driver, then firing willy nilly is ill advised

 

[ohmygosher]

Target moving =/= shooting "willy nilly".

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

Maybe he was shooting at the driver from the side and she ducked?
Maybe he missed?
Not sure what you're trying to get at.

People keep saying she tried to run over the cop, yet she wasn't even driving the car.

You don't see the logical fallacy in that.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Personally I don't give a damn if the officer is as Black as this background it was still excessive force.

The more I think about this story the more angry I get.

If a car is speeding right at you, what the hell is shooting the driving going to do?

 

[maldonado]

People keep saying she tried to run over the driver, yet she wasn't even driving the car.
You don't see the logical fallacy in that.

this.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Maybe he was shooting at the driver from the side and she ducked?
Maybe he missed?
Not sure what you're trying to get at.

People keep saying she tried to run over the driver, yet she wasn't even driving the car.

You don't see the logical fallacy in that.

Naw man he could have let loose his whole clip and killed whoever but because he was threatened it was okay.

 

[sundoobie]

Man I hope that security guard goes to jail and prosecuted for murder. No way does shoplifting and/or driving away warrants him to open fire on a moving target with other civilians in the area. Stupid Police yet again...

 

[ohmygosher]

Maybe he was shooting at the driver from the side and she ducked?
Maybe he missed?
Not sure what you're trying to get at.

People keep saying she tried to run over the cop, yet she wasn't even driving the car.

You don't see the logical fallacy in that.

What people mean when they say she tried to run him over is that she was in the car that tried to run him over.

 

[00david00]

Maybe he was shooting at the driver from the side and she ducked?
Maybe he missed?
Not sure what you're trying to get at.

People keep saying she tried to run over the cop, yet she wasn't even driving the car.

You don't see the logical fallacy in that.

What people mean when they say she tried to run him over is that she was in the car that tried to run him over.

by that logic the kids were also trying to run over the cop

 

[D StaXX]

What people mean when they say she tried to run him over is that she was in the car that tried to run him over.

You don't see a problem with that?