"Clif" wrote in message
hlink.net...
What do you mean next thing you know? I had the fine pleasure of working
with our soldiers for 3 years at fort bragg. I was disgusted by the
amount
of disrespect they face everyday. And whats worse is I saw it go on at a
military installation. Granted there was usually a fight within a few
minutes lol, but I cant believe I saw it at all.

Thank you to all that have served to protect me, I wish I had, but I
didnt,
so I did the next best thing. I helped train our soldiers as a civilian
contractor

GOD BLESS THE USA

Clif

Good for you Clif. All I was able to contribute was and is my undying
admiration and gratitude for all of them.

Leon states:

You are blowing this out of proportion. I beleive the original idea was
someond being hurt when stealing. Cops do have the legal right to order
anyone to stop and to stop that person.

The original statement had zip to do with cops. It was clerks in a WalMart
store.

But the liberal laws protect them. It has to be up to the police officers
to put this fear into the criminals. Jail time obviousely does not work.
The only thing most criminals fear is being beaten up.

Bull****. Criminals fear jail time, but they know that a good lawyer means
their only jail time will be in the arrest pen.

Criminals do not want this to happen either. I seriousely doubt that you
will be jumped if you simply cooperate and show them that you don't have
something that you have not paid for.

I do not owe a clerk cooperation or an explanation of anything. Jesus.

And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way, the
liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the right
to protect their property?

When did citizens lose the right to be left alone when they have not done
anything?

Neither one of us knows whether the parties jumped were guilty or innocent.
But, then, neither did the clerks who did the jumping. They thought they knew.
Different thing.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Clif responds (though God knows to what):

I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the back
of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop covered
in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you still
call him a pig"

WTF does this have to do with a clerk jumping someone?

There are some people out there who will only respect a
policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if they
are not helping them, they dont care

Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. Cops/firemen/EMS
deserve respect when they do their jobs well. When they don't, they deserve no
respect.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Leon responds:

What do you mean next thing you know? I had the fine pleasure of working
with our soldiers for 3 years at fort bragg. I was disgusted by the
amount
of disrespect they face everyday. And whats worse is I saw it go on at a
military installation. Granted there was usually a fight within a few
minutes lol, but I cant believe I saw it at all.

Thank you to all that have served to protect me, I wish I had, but I
didnt,
so I did the next best thing. I helped train our soldiers as a civilian
contractor

GOD BLESS THE USA

Clif

Good for you Clif. All I was able to contribute was and is my undying
admiration and gratitude for all of them.

Fine. Next time you run into a vet, buy him or her a drink. Has nothing at all
to do with what you were arguing about.

You're going off the deep end about cops and military and ignoring the fact
that the OP was writing about clerks in a frigging WalMart store!

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"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.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:59:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:

Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The
Constitution is all screwed up, according to you, because the presumption
of innocence comes from that source.

Would you care to tell us where, exactly, in the Constitution this principle
is established?

The 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.

cf: Coffin v. United States.






Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Fine. Next time you run into a vet, buy him or her a drink. Has nothing at
all
to do with what you were arguing about.

I to that pretty often anyway as many of my relatives have served.


You're going off the deep end about cops and military and ignoring the
fact
that the OP was writing about clerks in a frigging WalMart store!

No, I am not getting excited or deep, I believe that a person has the right
to defend his property and do what ever is necessary within the law to stop
a thief. If that means a rent a cop going after a thief, that is what I am
paying him for. I was originally pointing out that is too bad that liberal
laws give a thief way too much protection and not enough protection to those
that he is robbing.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Leon states:

You are blowing this out of proportion. I believe the original idea was
someone being hurt when stealing. Cops do have the legal right to order
anyone to stop and to stop that person.

The original statement had zip to do with cops. It was clerks in a
Wal-Mart
store.

Clerks, cops, or rent a cops. If the thief gets hurt during a crime, too
bad for him. We should not have to fear hurting him when he is caught red
handed.

But the liberal laws protect them. It has to be up to the police
officers
to put this fear into the criminals. Jail time obviousely does not work.
The only thing most criminals fear is being beaten up.

Bull****. Criminals fear jail time, but they know that a good lawyer means
their only jail time will be in the arrest pen.

Therefore, they do not fear going to jail.


Criminals do not want this to happen either. I seriously doubt that you
will be jumped if you simply cooperate and show them that you don't have
something that you have not paid for.

I do not owe a clerk cooperation or an explanation of anything. Jesus.

If you are stealing you certainly do and I would gladly prove my innocence
if asked to display the inside of my coat if approached in a store that I am
visiting. I may never go back but I would respect the store for trying to
protect it's assets. It certainly beats making a scene and for sure looking
guilty, guilty or not.


And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way,
the
liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the
right
to protect their property?

When did citizens lose the right to be left alone when they have not done
anything?

Neither one of us knows whether the parties jumped were guilty or
innocent.
But, then, neither did the clerks who did the jumping. They thought they
knew.
Different thing.

True.

So how is the Bird House Book coming?




Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:19:17 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Revenge streak or not, those employees had better be damned sure those
people
they are injuring can be proved to be thieves. If there's the slightest
doubt,
they open themselves and WalMart to a case of which lawyer's dream,
especially
with personal injury added to false accusations.

I suspect if the person being caught is a thief or not, he has a case if he
is badly injured. There are way too many liberal laws that go too far to
protect the guilty.





any law that limits a corporation is good (TM)2004

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:42:20 GMT, "Clif" wrote:

I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the back
of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop covered
in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you still
call him a pig"

There are some people out there who will only respect a
policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if they
are not helping them, they dont care

Clif


they have a tough job. but it's one they signed up for. give them
cretit for what they do, and hold them to the highest standards.
Frankly, I think they're underpaid and the hiring standards are way
too lax.

me, I've seen way too much abuse of authority to have any respect for
the uniform. cops are people. they want my respect, they need to earn
it.

On 17 Aug 2004 19:09:26 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Leon writes:

Which IMHO is part of the problem. Ir law breakers had the fear of being
punished, they may not break so many laws. If some one is seen stealing, he
is not a suspect in the eyes of most people, he is truely guilty of
stealing. But, unfortunately, the liberal laws protect the criminal.
Again, don't let the criminal **** on your shoe and tell you is raining.

Oh, bull****. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice, with
the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty.

Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people get away
with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the right
to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all.

If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though, had
perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners, or
about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect
judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular rights
around arrest and incarceration.


nothing unfortunate about that. those laws came into being for very
specific and valid reasons, reasons that remain present.





Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them. But I don't
want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket because they
didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them following
me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things. I'm
too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure as hell
remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going down.

And then call the lawyers.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

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.


Well I think that the penalty in this case was harsh also. I also do not
believe that the security guards intended to kill the thief. But. he was
totally in the wrong and should not have been in this situation to start
with. He was totally responsible for what happened. He had no one else to
blame but him self. This guy could have easily have pulled a gun and shot
at the security guards. IMHO if you are chasing a thief you have to assume
that he may try to do you harm to keep from getting caught.

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:59:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:

Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The
Constitution is all screwed up, according to you, because the
presumption
of innocence comes from that source.

Would you care to tell us where, exactly, in the Constitution this
principle
is established?

The 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.

I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with no
witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed doing
the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.

they have a tough job. but it's one they signed up for. give them
cretit for what they do, and hold them to the highest standards.
Frankly, I think they're underpaid and the hiring standards are way
too lax.

Yes they do sign up, and yes there should be tougher standards


me, I've seen way too much abuse of authority to have any respect for
the uniform. cops are people. they want my respect, they need to earn
it.



ALL cops have my respect until they do something to lose it. And yes they
are highly underpaid, but this is a topic for another forum, I know i have
already gone way off woodworking already

Clif

We got off topic of an off topic post, its all good, dont get upset. If you
want to deal with that specific, how does a clerk jumping someone have to do
with someone being a witness to shoplifting...life is too short to argue
this much

Have a great day Charlie

Clif
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Clif responds (though God knows to what):

I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the
back
of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop
covered
in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you still
call him a pig"

WTF does this have to do with a clerk jumping someone?

There are some people out there who will only respect a
policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if they
are not helping them, they dont care

Again, nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. Cops/firemen/EMS
deserve respect when they do their jobs well. When they don't, they
deserve no
respect.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

I could only hope they mistake me for a thief :-)

When I was living at the YMCA for a
couple of weeks in 1994 there was a
graffitti on the elevator door, "RODNEY
KING ME!"

they have a tough job. but it's one they signed up for. give them
cretit for what they do, and hold them to the highest standards.

Is this you? That's what would give the truth to this statement. Are you happy

that you're fulfilling what you signed up for?
How would we know?
I've seen too many liberals put the
strong, straight and narrow strap on
others while practicing indulgent
behavior themselves.

Leon writes:

I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with no
witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed doing
the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.

Your book is not the instruction book for this country. For which I am
thankful.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

bridger responds:

perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners,
or
about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect
judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular
rights
around arrest and incarceration.


nothing unfortunate about that. those laws came into being for very
specific and valid reasons, reasons that remain present.

Yes, well...I was aiming at sarcasm and even missed irony, I guess.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

bridger writes:


any law that limits a corporation is good (TM)2004

I'm gonna steal that!

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Leon states:

I do not owe a clerk cooperation or an explanation of anything. Jesus.

If you are stealing you certainly do and I would gladly prove my innocence
if asked to display the inside of my coat if approached in a store that I am
visiting. I may never go back but I would respect the store for trying to
protect it's assets. It certainly beats making a scene and for sure looking
guilty, guilty or not.


You are ****ting me? Making a scene worries you? I don't respect stores for
protecting their assets. I respect them for giving the customer a good deal,
taking care of business and making a sensible profit.

If I am stealing...some clerk is going to decide that, from something he or she
saw or thinks he saw.

Like hell.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...


You are ****ting me? Making a scene worries you?

No, at the top of my lungs I have more than once called for a manager to
open more check outs at a large store. But if the employee indicates to me
that I may be doing something wrong, I will gladly let them go about their
business. Two weeks ago may wife and I were in a small fishing resort town
in southern Texas. We were in a large tourist shop when I heard a car
alarm go off just outside the the front doors. I casually walked out the
door to see if it was our car and carried with me some merchandise that I
had been looking at. Fifteen feet out the door I realised what I had done
and promptly got back inside the store. Had an employee called me on this I
would have been caught red handed. Sometimes mistakes happen that look as
wrong as wrong can be. Still I would have been guilty. Thieves use the
same tactics. Draw attention elsewhere and let someone else walk off with
the goods. Yes, I gladly let the employees check me out if the suspect me.
I and you could easily do something that looks quite suspitious.


I don't respect stores for protecting their assets.

You would rather pay higher prices to make up for stolen goods?

I respect them for giving the customer a good deal, taking care of business
and making a sensible profit.

Unfortunately protecting ones assets is part of that formula of making a
sensable profit.


If I am stealing...some clerk is going to decide that, from something he
or she
saw or thinks he saw.

Like hell.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Leon writes:

I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with
no
witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed
doing
the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.

Your book is not the instruction book for this country. For which I am
thankful.

So if someone walked into your shop and started stealing right in front of
you, you would let it happen and if he beat the rap you would be OK with
that???

On 17 Aug 2004 19:09:26 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

|Leon writes:
|
|Which IMHO is part of the problem. Ir law breakers had the fear of being
|punished, they may not break so many laws. If some one is seen stealing, he
|is not a suspect in the eyes of most people, he is truely guilty of
|stealing. But, unfortunately, the liberal laws protect the criminal.
|Again, don't let the criminal **** on your shoe and tell you is raining.
|
|Oh, bull****. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice, with
|the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty.
|
|Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people get away
|with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the right
|to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all.
|
|If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though, had
|perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners, or
|about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect
|judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular rights
|around arrest and incarceration.
|
|Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them. But I don't
|want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket because they
|didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them following
|me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things. I'm
|too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure as hell
|remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going down.

Unfortunately, in Arizona alledged shoplifting is a capital crime
punishable by summary execution.

Quote from: http://www.1delta.net/news0604.html

" D.A. Will NOT File Charges In Death Of Shoplifter
(Tucson,AZ-June 13,2004)--On Feb 26, Frank Hernandez,36, entered the
Safeway Food & Drug store and was soon suspected of shoplifting by the
store's Security Guards. When the Security Guards tried to detain
Hernandez for questioning, the suspect resisted and a struggle ensued
resulting in Hernandez death. On Fri. the Pima County Attorney's
Office stated they do NOT plan to file charges in the case against the
store & Security Guards involved. An autopsy showed Hernandez died of
"asphyxia due to neck compression" and also had internal hemorrhaging
and suffered blunt-force injuries. In a letter to the Tucson Police
Department, Deputy County Attorney Rick Unklesbay said, "Frank
Hernandez's death is tragic, but I cannot conclude that it is
criminal." Unklesbay said several factors played into his decision,
from witness accounts that described Hernandez as provoking the fight
to a state law that allows merchants to detain suspected shoplifters.
Another state law also allows people to use physical force when
detaining others for law enforcement."

End quote.

A newspaper article indicated that the security guard had no problem
whatsoever "taking down" Mr. Hernandez, so I believe that any
"self-defense-in-fear-of-my life" defense is inapplicable.

Note the last two sentences in the quoted material. Any store
employee, or agent can detain *anyone* they suspect of shoplifting.
If that person resists, physical force can be used to detain the
individual. It appears that if this escalates to *deadly force* that
is okay too.

ARS 13-1805.5.C states: A merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee,
with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable
manner and for a reasonable time any person suspected of shoplifting
as defined in subsection A of this section for questioning or
summoning a law enforcement officer.

ARS 13-1805.5.D states: Reasonable cause is a defense to a civil or
criminal action against a peace officer, a merchant or an agent or
employee of such merchant for false arrest, false or unlawful
imprisonment or wrongful detention.

(I will write more about the above in another post.)

ARS 13-408 states: A person is justified in using physical force
against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would
believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe
is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal
damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or
control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these
circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.

None of these sections seem to apply to shoplifting, but the DA
obviously thinks they do.

So in Arizona anyway, if you leave the Borg and the buzzer goes off as
you go out the door because the clerk didn't zap the rfid tag, and you
keep walking, you can be killed. Who said the wild west was dead.

And all along I thought that was a chess move????

BUB 209 wrote:

I could only hope they mistake me for a thief :-)


When I was living at the YMCA for a
couple of weeks in 1994 there was a
graffitti on the elevator door, "RODNEY
KING ME!"

What ever happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?
And who made the rent-a-cops the judge? I am all for damn strict laws
to suppress crime, but this is taking it too far. It would be akin to
being pistol whipped by a cop for speeding. Just my opinion....

Leon wrote:

"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.

What if the guards were mistaken????

Leon wrote:

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

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.



Well I think that the penalty in this case was harsh also. I also do not
believe that the security guards intended to kill the thief. But. he was
totally in the wrong and should not have been in this situation to start
with. He was totally responsible for what happened. He had no one else to
blame but him self. This guy could have easily have pulled a gun and shot
at the security guards. IMHO if you are chasing a thief you have to assume
that he may try to do you harm to keep from getting caught.

George wrote:

The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side somewhere
beyond your shoulder.

No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away except
to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.

They have these things called handcuffs.....

Makes me laugh
when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an
idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep
walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of
innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide, so
your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of
designer jeans.

Then there's the car chase controversy....

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Leon writes:

AMEN!!!!

Charlie Self wrote:

Leon writes:


I believe presumed innocent pertains more to something that happens with no
witnesses. If you are seen doing something and are caught red handed doing
the deed, presumed innocence means squat in my book.


Your book is not the instruction book for this country. For which I am
thankful.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Bob Schmall wrote:

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?

Hmm. "Different cultures" might be considerably closer to the
truth than "less civilized". I lived in one such country long
enough to wonder what had happened to civilization when I
returned to the USA.

How long has it been since you last felt it safe to leave the
keys in your car (for a year at a time) or to not lock your home
when you went out?

FWIW loss of a hand resulted /only/ from a trial process in which
fairness and justice were of equal importance with law; and which
was tempered with mercy, compassion, and wisdom (required
qualities for judging such matters) - which meant that a lesser
punishment was chosen whenever possible.

I've been fascinated that those people considered incarceration
uncivilized. Interesting thought, no?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

Leon wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...


You are ****ting me? Making a scene worries you?


No, at the top of my lungs I have more than once called for a manager to
open more check outs at a large store. But if the employee indicates to me
that I may be doing something wrong, I will gladly let them go about their
business. Two weeks ago may wife and I were in a small fishing resort town
in southern Texas. We were in a large tourist shop when I heard a car
alarm go off just outside the the front doors. I casually walked out the
door to see if it was our car and carried with me some merchandise that I
had been looking at. Fifteen feet out the door I realised what I had done
and promptly got back inside the store.

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.





So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???

Had an employee called me on this I
would have been caught red handed. Sometimes mistakes happen that look as
wrong as wrong can be. Still I would have been guilty. Thieves use the
same tactics. Draw attention elsewhere and let someone else walk off with
the goods. Yes, I gladly let the employees check me out if the suspect me.
I and you could easily do something that looks quite suspitious.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Bob Schmall wrote:

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?

Hmm. "Different cultures" might be considerably closer to the
truth than "less civilized". I lived in one such country long
enough to wonder what had happened to civilization when I
returned to the USA.

How long has it been since you last felt it safe to leave the
keys in your car (for a year at a time) or to not lock your home
when you went out?

FWIW loss of a hand resulted /only/ from a trial process in which
fairness and justice were of equal importance with law; and which
was tempered with mercy, compassion, and wisdom (required
qualities for judging such matters) - which meant that a lesser
punishment was chosen whenever possible.

I've been fascinated that those people considered incarceration
uncivilized. Interesting thought, no?

Very interesting, and I stand corrected. "Different cultures" is better
phraseology. We are the only WEstern country with the death penalty, so
referring to other culturess as less civilized is ridiculous.

Bob

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message ...
Leon writes:

I suspect if the person being caught is a thief or not, he has a case if he
is badly injured. There are way too many liberal laws that go too far to
protect the guilty

Oh, come on. Liberal laws. If some asshole comes diving on a person from a
store doorway, and causes harm, then where is the political stance of the
person who gets to sue? There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming the
person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.

But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole property.
That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered.

Pfui.

Charlie Self

Hi Charlie,

I was with you at the first sentence, but by the time you finished,
the description sounded liberal as opposed to the classical definition
of conservative.

Both conservative and liberal have become meaningless terms, to me at
least, but the most lucid explanation I ever heard of conservative
principles was that they revolve around property rights.

Assuming that definition holds water, then privileging property and
rights to/over it, including aggressive enforcement, would indeed
appear to be a more conservative stance--and thus your stance would
apppear to be more liberal.

Similar arguments about a homeowner's right to defend his property in
a robbery typically divide along similar political perspectives.

For your consideration,
H

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message ...
Leon writes:

I suspect if the person being caught is a thief or not, he has a case if he
is badly injured. There are way too many liberal laws that go too far to
protect the guilty

Oh, come on. Liberal laws. If some asshole comes diving on a person from a
store doorway, and causes harm, then where is the political stance of the
person who gets to sue? There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming the
person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.

But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole property.
That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered.

Pfui.

Charlie Self

Hi Charlie,

I was with you at the first sentence, but by the time you finished,
the description sounded liberal as opposed to the classical definition
of conservative.

Both conservative and liberal have become meaningless terms, to me at
least, but the most lucid explanation I ever heard of conservative
principles was that they revolve around property rights.

Assuming that definition holds water, then privileging property and
rights to/over it, including aggressive enforcement, would indeed
appear to be a more conservative stance--and thus your stance would
apppear to be more liberal.

Similar arguments about a homeowner's right to defend his property in
a robbery typically divide along similar political perspectives.

For your consideration,
H

"Mark L." 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.
So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???

I certainly would not have blamed him for doing his job. I was wrong.
Had I died, then it would have been my time to go. Stranger things have
happened. No body gets out a live.

"Mark L." wrote in message
m...
What if the guards were mistaken????


Well, then if they broke the law they would have to be handled accordingly.
What if the guy simply cooperated? He would probably still be alive. One
must always take responsibility for his own life and sometimes common sense
shoud over rule pride to keep you out of trouble.

"Mark L." wrote in message
m...
What ever happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?
And who made the rent-a-cops the judge? I am all for damn strict laws
to suppress crime, but this is taking it too far. It would be akin to
being pistol whipped by a cop for speeding. Just my opinion....


Again, if you run and disobey, you stand the chance of being treated with
less "respect". If you simply speed and the cop pulls you out of the car
and beats you, then he is at fault. If you ignored his lights and siren and
made him chase you, well can you blain him? Nothing like taunting a
policeman to test your rights.

"Mark L." wrote in message
m...


George wrote:

The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side
somewhere
beyond your shoulder.

No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away
except
to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.

They have these things called handcuffs.....

What, ask the thief to please stop running, and stand still while I cuff
you? Where do you live?

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:02:31 +0000, Leon wrote:

So if a security guard had suffacted you, you would have deserved it???

I certainly would not have blamed him for doing his job. I was wrong.
Had I died, then it would have been my time to go. Stranger things have
happened. No body gets out a live.

....and you can hasten the process if you ignore mother nature's rule:
Screw with the bull and you get the horn.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

No, you don't ask. You pursue until he/she is apprehended. If there is
resistance, you are permitted to use enough force to secure the subject
with cuffs, then after he/she is cuffed (generally) no more force is
needed. Been there, done that.

Leon wrote:

"Mark L." wrote in message
m...


George wrote:


The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side

somewhere

beyond your shoulder.

No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away

except

to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force.

They have these things called handcuffs.....


What, ask the thief to please stop running, and stand still while I cuff
you? Where do you live?