"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Bob Schmall wrote:


"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 through his own stupidity managed to get himself killed before it
got to trial.

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 is not a matter of "right to live". If the guards had gone after
him with heavy machine guns or something you might have a reasonable
point, but they did not, they caught him, held him down, and he
managed to die while they were doing it. This comes under the
heading of "**** happens".

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.

I have a high regard for the "rule of law". The "rule of law" does
not require that when one catches a criminal in the act on one's own
property one must let him walk away.

No, but it does specify the application of appropriate force. The
definition of appropriate force is quite specific and certainly
doesn't allow for deadly force, accidental or otherwise as a means of
preventing petty theft.

Define "deadly force".

deadly force : the degree of force that might result in the death of the
person the force is applied against.



EXCESSIVE FORCE - A law enforcement officer has the right to use such
force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a
lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement
officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.

Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the
force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use
under the circumstances.

Do you think a reasonable and prudent officer would allow a SUSPECT
to die to prevent petty theft?

Uh, the theft was not prevented--if it had been then there would have
been no suspect ot apprehend.

If caught in the act and apprehended the theft has been prevented and yet
there is still a suspect.


Leaving that aside, depends. Should a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" be aware that
kneeling on someone's chest will kill them?

Clearly

Should a "reasonable and
prudent law enforcement officer" periodically check the pulse of
someone on whom he is kneeling?

If he appears to be in distress, again clearly

Should a person who not a "law
enforcement officer" be judged by the standards of behavior for a
"reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" or by the standard of
behavior for a "reasonable and prudent civilian"?

I'd guess anyone over the age of 5 can recognize when someone is unable
to breath. Recognizing that you're causing that distress by kneeling on
his chest certainly seenms reasonable to me. Removing that knee certainly
seems prudent.

In any case, the big complaint seems to be that the court found that
the guards did not act improperly, therefore, any argument that their
action was, in law, wrong, would appear to have little basis.