Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 16th, 2011, 06:31 PM   #1
An Awesome Dude
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location:
Posts: 3,517
Smile

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/natio...116236674.html



Quote:
"Police report on January 13, Trent Allen Longton was seen stashing a Netbook computer inside his clothes in the electronics department of a Walmart near Salt Lake City. Then, he headed toward the front of the store. The workers approached him and escorted him to the loss prevention office. That's where Longton took out the laptop, and then a loaded handgun. He rushed the workers, pushing the gun into Gabe Stewart. [more]
This is insane,they disarmed the loser and lose thier jobs cause they tried to help Walmart?
Dude111 is offline  
Old February 17th, 2011, 03:30 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
http://www.wpsdlocal.../116236674.html



This is insane,they disarmed the loser and lose thier jobs cause they tried to help Walmart?


Yes it is insane. No additional case needs to be made as to why WM sucks. But, these people were heroes.



When the police are needed right now, perhaps they will arrive in five minutes. In those five minutes a lot can happen. When the perp pulled a gun, at that moment his life was forfeit. And yet, he was disarmed with no loss of life, or injury.



The former employees were heroes.
imaginethat is online now  
Old February 17th, 2011, 07:33 AM   #3
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 17,108
Oh, geezes. The workers acted on impulse. What else were they supposed to do? Let the guy take the Netbook and be fired for letting him do that? I hope the workers win their case. Walmart sucks. I will boycott Walmart.



I worked in a 7-11 store many years ago. I caught a guy stealing a case of beer. Called the police, and they got him. Caught another guy stealing food, but could not catch him. Called police, and he was not to be found. I felt pretty bad and blamed myself for that.



I worked the graveyard shift. Managing a store alone is a rough and thankless job. Managing and working at any store is rough when you have shoplifters and the workers at the Walmart broke the rule by stopping them.
highway80west is offline  
Old February 18th, 2011, 07:39 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
http://www.wpsdlocal.../116236674.html



This is insane,they disarmed the loser and lose thier jobs cause they tried to help Walmart?


Point A.....Wal Mart and Sam's Club, do suck, no argument there, company violates every rule in the book when it comes to employee relations, overtime pay, hiring illegal immigrants, sexual harassment, lack of medical benefits, anti-trust violations, anti-union regulations and laws and business practices that have put companies like Huffy Bicycles, Levy-Strauss Jeans and Vlasic Pickles into bankruptcy. Their business with China has endangered American retail like K-Mart, Target and almost every other retailer. Drive along any Interstate Hgwy in the country. If you see a Wal Mart near an exit, drive another 3-4 miles into the nearest town, and you will see almost the entire retail structure, tire stores, gas stations, pharmacies, clothing stores, etc., boarded up and out of business. IMHO, Wal Mart is as dangerous to the U.S. interests as Al Quida. You want to keep American's unemployed and the lower Middle Class and poor in their place while enhancing the national debt and assisting China - shop at Wal Mart.This is an evil company, and I had experience dealing with them for over 18-years. So much for my political opinion of them.



Point B.....The decision to fire the employees, while on the surface seems extreme, is, in fact, correct, although I would have just given them a two week suspension and retraining in corporate policy. Heroes perhaps, but the majority of states have shoplifting laws that require intent be proven, and the shoplifter exit the store with the stolen property before being confronted by store security. Unless they have on-duty, uniformed police officers in the store running Loss Control, all retail security is unarmed, and never-ever a viable match for an armed criminal, particularly a shoplifter, who in most cases is a very petty thief. A netbook computer at about $260 value vs. the profits of a store, or the company in case the security is wrong? The lawsuit will hit corporate's desk in about 3-days for false arrest and imprisonment, and every other thing the shoplifter's lawyer can lay on the store, and they will settle, never goes to court..



You let it walk, call the cops with as much information and video as you can on the shoplifter, and see if they can pick him up outside, and wait for another day, all shoplifter's return to the store.The shoplifter, as the article describes it, did not exit the store, so intent hasn't yet been totally proven, only concealment, which is part of intent, and the store security decided to act as police officers instead of security, which is there to protect property. I know for a fact Wal Mart doesn't arm their security personnel with anything (mace, guns, etc.). Even outside, if they confronted the shoplifter, and he pulls a gun, you back away (it's $260 vs. your life, and the lives of every customer or employee in the vicinity), and let him walk.Their actions were rash, impulsive and dangerous to everyone involved, over such a cheap item. The guy was armed and dangerous - that's a job for professional law enforcement, not plainclothes security or clerks in a store where thousands might be milling around, inside and out.



The hardest thing to teach somebody who wants to work asset protection in retail, is to ignore the urge to act when in doubt, or confronted with an unexpected (although it should never be unexpected), criminal, who suddenly brandishes a firearm. I remember having a triangle ring of plainclothes security people on a shoplifter on Christmas Eve once, who was attempting a "snatch & grab" with his friends waiting in a vehicle parked in the fire lane in front of the store, two hours before closing for the holiday. We targeted this store as potential for trouble on Christmas Eve, based on previous thefts, internal and external.



Guy had about $3,000 in merchandise in two shopping carts, but couldn't get by the door greeter who was watching him closely, and had already challenged him twice for a receipt when he tried to push the carts out. My team pleaded with me to pull her out of the way, and let the guy walk, so we would have the "big Christmas Eve bust." I told them there were unknown person(s) waiting outside in a vehicle for him, the confrontation would take place in front of them, and was too dangerous, but we would go through with it, if the guy really had the stones to push the carts past the doors. In the meantime, I phoned the local police, and a cruiser pulled up behind the guys out front in the car, and they quickly roared off, leaving their friend with the two shopping cars inside. He hadn't done anything criminal, just loaded up the carts, but we knew what he was planning.



The safety of the team, shoppers and employees, plusthe possibility of leaving the store unprotected its last two hours before closing on Christmas Eve, with all that money available in the cash office, caused me to let it walk. We could have let him go with the carts, and started a four on one confrontation in front of the store, taking into account the fact that we had no idea what his friends in the car might do, there were at least three of them. With all the shoppers bustling about that close to closing? Best business decision was to back off, unless absolutely necessary. I also would never have told a customer service employee, who that greeter was, to back off from her job, when there was no danger, so we could let the situation escalate, in fact, gave her a raise the next business day. That is the type of thinking those Wal Mart security guys should have been using. They got very, very lucky they were not shot or killed, and so did everyone around that situation. Avoid the impulse, let the police handle it, they had no business of confronting in the store, and no business continuing the confrontation or action outside, IMO.......Stan
Stan Fan is offline  
Old February 19th, 2011, 04:38 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,774
Well, when you put it that way Stan.....
imaginethat is online now  
Old February 19th, 2011, 09:26 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
PaperAlchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,433
I know that recently my father was in a car crash. Nothing serious, don't worry, it was a head-on collision, at low speeds, just dented bumpers on both cars. But it took nearly 15 minutes for the cops to get there. If the crash had been more serious, and the cops took 15 minutes, people could have died. Now I'm not blaming the cop, I'm just saying that 15 minutes is far too long.
PaperAlchemist is offline  
Old February 19th, 2011, 09:35 AM   #7
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
This story is yet another example of the price being paid every day for America's lethal, backward gun culture that lurks under the fallacious guise of a "God-given" right.
garysher is offline  
Old February 21st, 2011, 06:56 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
This story is yet another example of the price being paid every day for America's lethal, backward gun culture that lurks under the fallacious guise of a "God-given" right.


I consider this to be a very fair statement, although don't want to be part of a gun control discussion. The problem with those who support the right of the people to bear arms, under the U.S. Constitution, is that the guns now in use, were never even imagined when our Founding Fathers put that clause into the Constitution. They were concerned about a foreign power (as England was viewed during the Revolution), or our own government in a state vs. state confrontation (which later occurred in the Civil War, and Lincoln considered illegal), or an uprising (like the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania over a barrel tax during George Washington's Administration), and the ability of the local state population, or militia, to quickly raise an army (Minutemen), put down the uprising, and return to their homes.



The essence of the clause was that a well-regulated State militia was necessary to maintain peace and order. This puts the actual original intent in modern terms to the enlistment and maintaining of a National Guard force, or State Police force, with those members having weapons for this purpose. Also, you have to view the evolution of the Sheriff in America, from the British Constable to the U.S. Marshal, to the Sheriff (the highest elected official in every county in America). The ability of the Sheriff to swear in deputies and raise a posse of citizens to pursue criminals is one of the oldest rights we have. Our culture, however, didn't evolve the way the Founding Father's originally intended, and the Supreme Court has upheld that right to bear arms to apply to each and every citizen, barring some restrictions like being mentally unbalanced or having a previous criminal record (state regulations upheld by the court). Guns were a necessary evil as America expanded, during the foreign wars, settling the West, etc. There never was a hue and cry during the late 1800's, after the Civil War, when the West was being settled, that citizen's didn't have the right to bear arms, in fact, it was quite dangerous in that area to go around unarmed. Thus, the American Gun culture grew to become a "right" upheld by the Supreme Court. We still have crime problems, guns are still necessary, it is the type of guns being used where problems come in. Military assault rifles for instance, where hundreds of rounds can be fired in seconds, that cause problems, or automatics like the one used in Tucson.



The problem with the gun lobby, is that they are afraid if the government regulates any particular type of gun or ammunition, it is giving away its right to keep and bear arms. Nobody to my knowledge ever suggested taking sporting rifles or shotguns out of civilian hands, or even handguns, but at some point, for the protection of all, we have to give up a part of our "rights" to maintain peace and order. The NRA and gun lobby refuses to accept that for any type of firearm, and that position does nothing for peace and safety, law and order. In fact, we have given up gun rights in the past, after the Kennedy Assassination, mail order firearms were outlawed across a state line. The gun lobby considers it a "slippery slope" which will lead to banning of all firearms, not so, even if they were illegal, they never could be collected anyway, would be like the Prohibition Law against alcohol manufacture and use. I happen to like Virginia's law's concerning firearms. You may carry one, providing it is carried within plain view on your person, or in your automobile. That means, if the police pull you over, you better put that handgun up on the dash, out of reach, when the officer arrives, and keep your hands in view. That was how the Old West was, and I don't see a problem with it, providing the gun, usually a handgun, isn't carried onto school property, or churches, or sporting events where crowds are large. We can live with a gun control law like that - the criminal's can't......Stan
Stan Fan is offline  
Old February 21st, 2011, 07:29 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,774
[font="'Trebuchet MS"]Colorado has a similar law permittingcitizens to wear a gun in plain sight, and carry a gun in a car in plain sight. It's a good law imo.



I suppose the Second Amendment debate will go on forever, however even as a long-haired, peace and love hippie in the late-60s this principle seemed abundantly clear to me: If guns ever are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.



The same principle applies to types of firearms, as well. The notion that certain types of weapons should be outlawed to prevent them from falling into hands of evil intent will succeed only in keeping those weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Recently, I voluntarily disarmed myself, but my personal defense weapon of choice was a .40 cal. 13-shot, semi-auto pistol that would fire those rounds as quickly as I could pull the trigger, which was pretty fast.



Original intent is always a matter of some speculation, but these are the basic positions:



Quote:
[/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"]Justice [/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"]Antonin Scalia[/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"] in writing for the majority in [/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"]District of Columbia v. Heller[/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"]:[/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"]

[/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"]

[/font]
[font="'Trebuchet MS"]Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people[/font][sup][font="'Trebuchet MS"][106][/font][/sup]
[font="'Trebuchet MS"]

[/font]
[font="'Trebuchet MS"]Justice [/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"]John Paul Stevens[/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"] countered in the minority opinion:



[/font]
[font="'Trebuchet MS"]

[/font][font="'Trebuchet MS"]When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.[/font][sup][font="'Trebuchet MS"][107][/font][/sup][font="'Trebuchet MS"]




I've no problem with law-abiding citizens owning any form of weaponry. I'd just as soon that criminals had no access to weaponry. But, it's a given that highly lethal weapons never will be legislated out of the hands of those who shouldn't have access to them, imo.[/font]
imaginethat is online now  
Old February 21st, 2011, 10:19 AM   #10
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Fan View Post
I consider this to be a very fair statement, although don't want to be part of a gun control discussion. The problem with those who support the right of the people to bear arms, under the U.S. Constitution, is that the guns now in use, were never even imagined when our Founding Fathers put that clause into the Constitution. They were concerned about a foreign power (as England was viewed during the Revolution), or our own government in a state vs. state confrontation (which later occurred in the Civil War, and Lincoln considered illegal), or an uprising (like the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania over a barrel tax during George Washington's Administration), and the ability of the local state population, or militia, to quickly raise an army (Minutemen), put down the uprising, and return to their homes.



The essence of the clause was that a well-regulated State militia was necessary to maintain peace and order. This puts the actual original intent in modern terms to the enlistment and maintaining of a National Guard force, or State Police force, with those members having weapons for this purpose. Also, you have to view the evolution of the Sheriff in America, from the British Constable to the U.S. Marshal, to the Sheriff (the highest elected official in every county in America). The ability of the Sheriff to swear in deputies and raise a posse of citizens to pursue criminals is one of the oldest rights we have. Our culture, however, didn't evolve the way the Founding Father's originally intended, and the Supreme Court has upheld that right to bear arms to apply to each and every citizen, barring some restrictions like being mentally unbalanced or having a previous criminal record (state regulations upheld by the court). Guns were a necessary evil as America expanded, during the foreign wars, settling the West, etc. There never was a hue and cry during the late 1800's, after the Civil War, when the West was being settled, that citizen's didn't have the right to bear arms, in fact, it was quite dangerous in that area to go around unarmed. Thus, the American Gun culture grew to become a "right" upheld by the Supreme Court. We still have crime problems, guns are still necessary, it is the type of guns being used where problems come in. Military assault rifles for instance, where hundreds of rounds can be fired in seconds, that cause problems, or automatics like the one used in Tucson.



The problem with the gun lobby, is that they are afraid if the government regulates any particular type of gun or ammunition, it is giving away its right to keep and bear arms. Nobody to my knowledge ever suggested taking sporting rifles or shotguns out of civilian hands, or even handguns, but at some point, for the protection of all, we have to give up a part of our "rights" to maintain peace and order. The NRA and gun lobby refuses to accept that for any type of firearm, and that position does nothing for peace and safety, law and order. In fact, we have given up gun rights in the past, after the Kennedy Assassination, mail order firearms were outlawed across a state line. The gun lobby considers it a "slippery slope" which will lead to banning of all firearms, not so, even if they were illegal, they never could be collected anyway, would be like the Prohibition Law against alcohol manufacture and use. I happen to like Virginia's law's concerning firearms. You may carry one, providing it is carried within plain view on your person, or in your automobile. That means, if the police pull you over, you better put that handgun up on the dash, out of reach, when the officer arrives, and keep your hands in view. That was how the Old West was, and I don't see a problem with it, providing the gun, usually a handgun, isn't carried onto school property, or churches, or sporting events where crowds are large. We can live with a gun control law like that - the criminal's can't......Stan


Excellent post Stan.



However, isn't it odd this principle is never applied in any other situation?



We never say that heroin trafficking can never be stopped so let's just make it legal.



Or that people will always rob banks so why bother making a law against it!



Bottom line I agree the "toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube".



The daily slaughter, the gang shoot-outs, the school lock-downs and the Wal-Mart incidents will continue unabated with barely a raised eyebrow.



Unfortunately America is stuck with its wild west gun culture and can never aspire to the levels of civilisation reached in most of industrialised Europe and Asia.





garysher is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
confrontational, fires, handled, shoplifter, walmart, workers



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Feds Won't Stop Walmart Black Friday Strike, Walmart Threatens Firings skews13 Current Events 28 November 26th, 2012 02:17 PM
Walmart: Olay For 8 Year Olds Dude111 Current Events 10 February 15th, 2011 07:22 PM
Man Smashes 29 TVs At Ga. WalMart Dude111 Crime and Punishment 8 February 14th, 2010 07:50 AM
Walmart and Unions Rod Business & Industries 13 January 15th, 2007 07:57 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.