"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob Schmall wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Eddie Munster" wrote in message
...
Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect
died.

He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards
held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't
breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in
training
courses.

John

That is the chance the guy took, He lost this one.

Is this what they call "compassionate conservatism?" That someone
stealing
deserves to die? Why not just cut off his hand as they do in less
civilized countries?

This isn't an eye for an eye--this is a life for an eye, and that's not
right. The guy deserved a trial and conviction within a legal system,
not
execution by a $8 an hour civilian. When we start allowing vigilante
justice we are well down the road to barbarism.

This is realism. He stole.

As decided by what jury of his peers? What court adjudicated?


He thus risked apprehension. When apprehended,
he resisted, and thus risked application of force. When force is applied
then death is a possible outcome. He took the chance, what happened after
that was on his head.

Nope. What was on his head what the suspected commission of a crime. Since
when do people suspected of a crime lose their right to live?

It amazes me that people can turn apprehension of someone caught in the
act
into "vigilante justice".

It amazes me that you have so little regard for the rule of law.

If these guards got a good look at him and three weeks later saw somebody
who they thought looked like him walking down the street and killed that
person, _that_ would be "vigilante justice".

Further, the issue is not that "if someone steals they deserve to die".
You
are confusing injuries sustained as a result of resisting apprehension
with
penalties applied by law. If someone steals and gets caught at it and
gets
hurt or killed while attempting to resist apprehension then that is their
problem.

Nope--it's giving carte blanche to the person apprehending them to use
deadly force. And don't think I'm favoring the perp. If he is judged to be a
thief, then he deserves the punishment--but not until then.

Yes, the guards should have been better trained. But the guy
"knew or should have known" (as various statutes say about various things)
that he was dealing with rent-a-cops.

So he should ask about store security before committing the crime? "Pardon
me, may I see the manager about what could happen if I steal something?"


Maybe it didn't occur to him that
lack of training might equate to excessive use of force rather than
inability to overpower him.

Talk about "liberals" letting people off. So lack of training gets the guard
off the hook? "Excuse me, sir. You, the one under my knee. Are you aware
that I have not been trained in proper restraint techniques? Not that it
matters to me."
If he wasn't properly trained, why did he use the maneuver?

The only thing the perp should have known was that stealing is wrong.

Bob