Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Who needs a gun at Wal-mart in Houston?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    http://consumerist.com/2010/03/woman...-attacker.html


    A Houston woman says she was attacked by a man wielding a knife inside her local Walmart and that the store security did nothing to stop the incident or to apprehend the attacker.
    According to the woman, she went to the store around 6 a.m. to do some pre-breakfast grocery shopping when she claims a man put her in a chokehold and pulled a knife on her.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  2. #2
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    And yet another example of how liability ties the hands of those who are perceived to be there to protect and assist the public.

    Just like those security folks in the subway, they are only there to observe and report. Not to interfere.

    As a private citizen, we are more free to act in situations than police and security.

    As a licensed security guard, I am constrained by company policies which are written with liability in mind ... and we all know that companies will not take a stand one way or another until forced by circumstances. While I applaud Starbucks for not backing down, their inadvertant inclusion in the Open Carry issue was simply a result of their company policy of taking the easiest path ... "we follow state laws" is another way of saying, "we have no official opinion, but will take the position which provides us the most protection under the individual state's laws." I do not begrudge them this position as this is the actions that have been forced upon vendors by lawsuits that I personally consider frivilous. Remember the McDonalds' coffee fiasco?
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    So Portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Q. Who needs to carry a a wal-Mart?

    A. Anybody who wants to.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    okboomer wrote:
    And yet another example of how liability ties the hands of those who are perceived to be there to protect and assist the public.

    Just like those security folks in the subway, they are only there to observe and report. Not to interfere.
    That security guard did exactly what he was supposed to. Keep an eye on the situation until a salaried member of management got there. What he/she would have done, I have no idea. Employees aren't allowed to carry.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  5. #5
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Don't give me that. What he should have done was intervene.

    You know it as well as I do.

    And if you can't see that, I sure hope that if I replaced that k at the end of your username with a D, it wouldn't be your last name.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    And people wonder why we Open Carry or carry at all. Walmart has that wonderful "do nothing except call the cops" policy. I'm not sure if it's actually policy but I worked at Walmart a few years back and that's what they told us... could have been prevented

  7. #7
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    Don't give me that. What he should have done was intervene.

    You know it as well as I do.

    And if you can't see that, I sure hope that if I replaced that k at the end of your username with a D, it wouldn't be your last name.
    First of all, what does my last name have to do with anything? Was that some sort of joke? Threat? I don't get it, sorry.
    Now. The in my post was a reference to the entire situation. YES he should have intervened. YES he should have helped the woman. YES the employees should be allowed to protect themselves, the customers, and (IMO) company property. But NO, we aren't supposed to. Like Hollowpoint pointed out, it's against Wal-Mart policy for hourly associates to intervene in anything. If you see, with your own eyes, someone do anything wrong, you can't do **** unless you are a manager.

    As sad as it is to say it, the security guy was doing exactly what he was paid to do. It just goes to show that no one is responsible for your safety but you. :X
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    mcdonalk wrote:
    thx997303 wrote:
    Don't give me that. What he should have done was intervene.

    You know it as well as I do.

    And if you can't see that, I sure hope that if I replaced that k at the end of your username with a D, it wouldn't be your last name.
    First of all, what does my last name have to do with anything? Was that some sort of joke? Threat? I don't get it, sorry.
    Now. The in my post was a reference to the entire situation. YES he should have intervened. YES he should have helped the woman. YES the employees should be allowed to protect themselves, the customers, and (IMO) company property. But NO, we aren't supposed to. Like Hollowpoint pointed out, it's against Wal-Mart policy for hourly associates to intervene in anything. If you see, with your own eyes, someone do anything wrong, you can't do @#$% unless you are a manager.

    As sad as it is to say it, the security guy was doing exactly what he was paid to do. It just goes to show that no one is responsible for your safety but you. :X
    In many (most?) instances store security are just paid witnesses and have no defensive training or tools unless they are off duty LEOs.

    In this instance a good citizen was able to defuse the event - so what is the problem? Wal-Mart IMHO should thank the good citizen, but that is highly unlikely.

    Do you actually expect Wally World to protect you?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    okboomer wrote:
    As a private citizen, we are more free to act in situations than police and security.
    Security yes, police no. Definitely not.

    If you tried to "act" in the fashion that some cops would you'd find yourself in jail so fast your head would spin.

    Let's be real. The propaganda that police are unable to act because of liability is utter nonsense.

    The bad apples *escape* liability far more too frequently. No, if anything, the propaganda you espouse has put us too far in that direction, and we now need far *more* applied liability (criminal and civil) for police.

    Anyway, I'm not sure we need more "sheep dogs". I think what we really need are more human beings. And the sheepdogs don't exactly encourage the sheep to leave the fold. But that's what we need. If anything we need fewer LEOs and less assumption that they and security can exist to protect you. This might force people to wake up to the fact that no police can ever be truly responsible for the personal safety and security of individuals.

  10. #10
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    Depends if the police actually witness any Misdemeanor in their presence, or if a reasonable belief that a felony was committed before they arrived. If the woman seemed credible, then they would have RAS ... if not, then they would have no basis for detainment of the subject.

    Now, in real life practice, I agree that more times than not, the dude will be hand-cuffed and interviewed regardless of the facts.

    As a citizen, all we have to have is to be in fear for our lives, or the lives of others to act.


    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  11. #11
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    mcdonalk wrote:
    thx997303 wrote:
    Don't give me that. What he should have done was intervene.

    You know it as well as I do.

    And if you can't see that, I sure hope that if I replaced that k at the end of your username with a D, it wouldn't be your last name.
    First of all, what does my last name have to do with anything? Was that some sort of joke? Threat? I don't get it, sorry.
    Now. The in my post was a reference to the entire situation. YES he should have intervened. YES he should have helped the woman. YES the employees should be allowed to protect themselves, the customers, and (IMO) company property. But NO, we aren't supposed to. Like Hollowpoint pointed out, it's against Wal-Mart policy for hourly associates to intervene in anything. If you see, with your own eyes, someone do anything wrong, you can't do @#$% unless you are a manager.

    As sad as it is to say it, the security guy was doing exactly what he was paid to do. It just goes to show that no one is responsible for your safety but you. :X
    I'll begin with, you said the guard did what he should have done. Not what he is paid to do.

    As you agree, He SHOULD have intervened. He is not PAID to, but he SHOULD have.

    Your original wording was poor and lead me to believe something other than your apparently intended meaning.

    As for your last name, let's just say it's a matter of association.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    The woman should have armed herself. Maybe now she will.

    After all, SHE is supposed to be the one ultimately responsiblefor her own personal safety.

    - John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    I see alot of talk about what these rent-a-cops should have done in this situation.

    What I don't see is how YOU would have handled it!

  14. #14
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    Well, since I'm an unarmed Wal-Mart employee , I probably would have tried to talk him down by offering him money or something. I have no idea what started the situation, or why he attacked her so it is hard to say for sure. Keep in mind, I would be risking my job, not to mention my life, if I decided to confront the BG unarmed. And it's still the best company I've ever worked for.

    The reason it is easy to pick on the rent-a-cop is because it seems he didn't even try to talk to the assailant. It seems he offered no assistance whatsoever.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Here's an earlier outrage of a similar event -- security guards (apparently a misnomer nowadays) not intervening, possibly due to mall policy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vU81qkuvcU

    Whatever suits madeAND APPROVEDthe non-intervention policy should be likewise assaulted at that mall and in frontof the same "security" guards -- who would again not intervene -- but this time the beating (of the suits) would be well and truly deserved.

    -- John D.


    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    That is insane! Why pay for security if there is a policy against helping?

    The job description is in the name is self: Secur(e)ity.

    What are you securing in that video? nothing! I got into an argument with hospital security today about carrying a gun because it was printing on my shirt. He said I don't need a weapon because there is security in the building. I said, "there are no posted signs, you don't have a copy of your policy, and I don't trust you to protect me."

    This is a prime example of why we should all carry and not expect others to protect us.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hollowpoint38 wrote:
    That is insane! Why pay for security if there is a policy against helping?

    The job description is in the name is self: Secur(e)ity.

    What are you securing in that video? nothing! I got into an argument with hospital security today about carrying a gun because it was printing on my shirt. He said I don't need a weapon because there is security in the building. I said, "there are no posted signs, you don't have a copy of your policy, and I don't trust you to protect me."

    This is a prime example of why we should all carry and not expect others to protect us.
    Maybe the backs of their jackets should read "Observe and Reportity" since instead of securing, they are observing and reporting.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I agree. Why do these companies pay for "security" if they can't do anything? Can someone answer that question? Some girl scared for her life goes and hides with a "security" officer. Thebadguycomes over and starts beating the girl right in front of "security" and they don't do ANYTHING.

    So why pay for them? What are they their for?

  19. #19
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    Hollowpoint,

    As a licensed armed security guard, I can tell you that the "observe and report" is a direct result of companies and corporations reacting to liability concerns. If a security guard reacts and intervenes in an assault such as the two under discussion here, the company would then be liable for any and all actions of the SG. So, if an SG injures someone during his assistance, the company is liable for the costs of that injury.

    This is not "written" down somewhere, it is based on observed instructions and actions. These specific "do nothing" instructions are not even written in the rules of conduct that a company will provide to a SG ... they are verbal and can be denied in a court of law. (Again with the fear of liability)

    Once you are trained and licensed, good samaritan laws will not protect a SG ... nor a company.

    As for hospital security. Ah, well, they did not have the authority to ask you to leave the premises without instructions from higher up, and those instructions would not have come without consulting the lawyers. You get the idea ... the lawyers are involved and in this situation, it is an abundance of caution that is driving policies. (I personally don't blame the companies ... they have to show a profit to their shareholders and a lawsuit over them standing on principle is not good for the bottom line.)


    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    I am sure we all know why security guards do not proved security.

    It is still morally wrong.

    There needs to be a legal definition of words "security" and "guard." When those words are emblazoned on an employee, that employee should be trained and authorized to act to provide security to people and property on the premises of the person who hires the employee or the service.

    That young lady in the bus tunnel had a reasonable expectation that she could walk up to someone with "Security" on his back and receive at least an attempt at protection.

    On that basis, she should sue, and she should win. IMO.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I can see where you're coming from, but a security guard should not be held responsible for injuries someone receives when they stop a crime. If I ran from the police and tackled me which sprained my ankle, I can't sue them because I was committing a crime when I was hurt. Unless the security guard acting unlawfully and recklessly, then he should be able to stop such events without him or the company fearing legal trouble. This is so wrong!

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hollowpoint38 wrote:
    I can see where you're coming from, but a security guard should not be held responsible for injuries someone receives when they stop a crime. If I ran from the police and tackled me which sprained my ankle, I can't sue them because I was committing a crime when I was hurt. Unless the security guard acting unlawfully and recklessly, then he should be able to stop such events without him or the company fearing legal trouble. This is so wrong!
    The standard I would apply is "acting in good faith." As long as the security guard is reasonably trained and is trying to help, the legal system should take note that bad things sometimes happen when we try to do good things. Hold the BG liable.

    Unfortunately, BGs tend not to have deep pockets. Wal-Mart and security companies do.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Oh well. I would have lost my job to help her.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hollowpoint38 wrote:
    Oh well. I would have lost my job to help her.
    Good. We need to be people first.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Portland ,ME, ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    I have read, and agree with, most of this thread. However, what the hell is up with a bunch of folks standing around watching a girl get stomped like that. SG or not, why the F didn't someone just pick the kid up to stop the madness?? I have 3 young kids, 2 girls, and if i had been there you bet I would have done something. Just being an adult male in that situation and stepping up could have prevented not all, but a good portion of that poor girls pain....I hold everyone on that platform guilty on inaction!!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •