This is topic 100,000 Volts in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=023613

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
I was late for work again this morning. Not for the usual reason though (talking to Xavier or some other bright eyed and bushy tailed Hatracker).

I got in my car and drove down to the corner only to find a long line of cars waiting for what I thought might have been a broken stoplight or something. How wrong I was.

Let me set the scene for you: I, quite possibly live in the worst neighborhood in Omaha, NE. Now, I understand what you are thinking. Oooh! Omaha! Scary! No, you aren’t going to take me seriously but, at least try to imagine that Omaha is not cornfields and barns. As a matter of fact, I make sure people know that I have never even seen a cow up close.

Allow me to continue with my story. I inch closer and observe the following: in the middle of the intersection, a woman, in her 20’s attempting to escape the hold of a man clutching a stun gun (not unlike this one). This woman is screaming and yelling obscenities in her attempts to run away. I look around to notice that at the corner store, J & J Market, the red baskets (you know, the ones that you use to carry 12 or less items) are littered all over the sidewalk. The woman starts to make progress and moves toward my car, bypasses it, and tries to get into another, but not before the man (the owner of the store) can zap her a few more times. She just wouldn’t go down.

Finally, he gets a good hold on her and by that time, I decide the excitement is over and I proceed to work, a little in shock might I add.

****

I have been thinking about this incident all day at work and decided to do some investigating (a.k.a. be nosy). I get home from work and come to the conclusion that I need some soda, and not from any grocery store, but from J & J Market. So, I walk down the street and much to my dismay, they have no Diet Coke with Lime. Oh well. I pick up some of that new Sprite and start up conversation with the clerk.

N: “So, I heard you had some action this morning….?”
Clerk: (laughs) “Yeah, you heard about that?!”
N: “Heh. Well, you could say that, she almost jumped on my car.”
C: “Well, she was trying to write a bad check and then ran out with some diapers and toilet paper. They arrested (or ticketed, I’m not sure) her for shoplifting.”
N: “Wow. A stun gun for just that?”

She and the other clerk continue to laugh and resume gossiping to each other and I leave.

****

Now, does anyone besides me think that the use of a stun gun in this situation was not necessary? This woman was not violent in the slightest. She was being hit with volts of electricity because she was running away with unpaid diapers! Anyone care to justify this to me?

[ April 20, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Valentine014 ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Wow. I'm with you, Valentine. I can understand trying to apprehend her, but the level of force used seems excessive, at least from the story we have.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like assault and battery to me. (I'm assuming the person with the stun gun was not a cop trying to subdue someone resisting arrest.)

Guess we should be glad it wasn't an actual gun.

[Edit: Wait a sec, it sounds like this WAS a cop. And she WAS resisting arrest -- or at least it sure sounds like she was. In that case, how do you suggest they restrain her? Nightstick?]

[ April 20, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
rivka, I think it was the owner of the store that was using the gun, according to Valentine's account.
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
No, this was not a police officer trying to arrest her. This was the shop owner.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
If someone even tried to steal a dollar from me and I had a stun gun, I would use it multiple times until he/she stopped running and was waiting for law enforcement or in custody. I think he was justified. Lesson: Don't steal.

Edit: If she was already restrained, and he was just shocking her to teach her a lesson, then I would consider THAT assault.

[ April 20, 2004, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
Now, we all know how accurate eye witness accounts are, right? What I'm saying is, after a brief assessment of the scene, I came to the conclusion she was not the victim here. ( Edit: not at this point, at least.)

Evidence: Scattered baskets which where laying away from the door, indicating that someone ran past them and knocked them over coming from inside the store. Also, the man was not trying to get her to go anywhere (like toward a car or house), he was trying to get a grip on her and keep her from going anywhere. In addition, this was in front of many people, right when all the kids are on their way to school and outside waiting for the bus. If he were trying to abduct her, I would think he would be waiting for a more opportune moment. It may also be worth noting that this was a larger woman (not huge, but a match for the shop owner.)

[ April 20, 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Valentine014 ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*thinks* I'm still not sure that the stun-gun-holder had any other real options -- other than letting someone shoplift from him. If he knew the check was bad, that implies she's done this before. Might even mean that any info on the checks is suspect. And stun guns don't generally have permanent effects, right?

Remember, this store is his livelihood. Theft comes straight out of his pocket. If he has kids, straight out of their mouths. I'm sure the check-kiter has kids to worry about too, but she lost any sympathy from me the moment she went from bad-check writing (which is bad enough!) to out-and-out theft.

[ April 20, 2004, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
 
Of course he was justified, she was stealing from him.
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
You're right. What was I thinking? The solution to a non-violent crime: violence using a weapon.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Stun guns are used primarily to replace real guns. Being violent is shooting her. There is precedent (note: I am not saying it is justified/unjustified) to shoot someone who is stealing. Stun guns are a step away from violence, not towards.

[ April 20, 2004, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 

---

Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
 
So the store owner was supposed to do what? Let her run off? Tackle her to the ground, oops that violence too. Nearly any solution that would stop her from getting away would invovle violence of somekind.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Val, you've got to release that he had two very distinct choices.

A) Let her take his merchandise
B) Stop her

If he chooses option A it comes (as has been mentioned) directly out of his pocketbook. Not only that, but now this women, and whoever she tells knows that if she/they take something from the store and run with it, he wont chase. This is not a good buisness idea. His whole livelhood involved buying incredible amounts of things (compared to the average citizen) and then let random people pursue around though his property. If it becomes known that we will not protect that property, he could very easily be ruined.

If he chooses option B, short of hoping she'll stop if he yells at her, he has to use violence of some sort. He could try to do various things, but if the women resists he has to use violence to stop her from taking his stuff. A stun gun, while undoubtly painful, will do no damage that will last, to my knowledge, for even a day. It also significantly reduces the possibilty of higher risk damage (things like tackling her has a lot of unkowns, punches thrown landing in inoportune spots and the like). Plus it's safer for him too. Overall, if you're going to stop someone determined to get away, stun gun is probably about the overall best in terms of how people come out of it health-wise.

He was given about a fraction of a second to make his desicion when she ran for it, and it took courage to stand-up for himself. As Lalo pointed out, lots of people would automatically attack him when they see the goings on (man fighting a women, usually the women is the one who is being unjustly attacked). I'd personally respect him more for that choice.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 

quote:

---

There is precedent (note: I am not saying it is justified/unjustified) to shoot someone who is stealing.

---

quote:

---

(man fighting a women, usually the women is the one who is being unjustly attacked

---

Sorry Hobbes, had to point this out. You are right in using usually. I do know a guy who was physically abused by his wife. Woman broke his arm for cryin out loud.

However, I would need both sides of the story to make a decision if I had the time to do so. For the guys that work for me, knowing both sides of the story gives me more ability to "go to bat" for them. I can use my verbal firepower to get them out of whatever trouble they could have been in. But if they were wrong in what they did, then my firepower is useless.

She's a thief, stun her for all I care. At least she can testify on her behalf. If he had shot her, then she might not have been able to, and he'd be looking at jail time.

[ April 21, 2004, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
 

---

Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
 
I've known people that have worked security before that would have loved to have had a stun gun or some manner of protection.

Saying that just because she's a woman doesn't mean that they should be nice to her. I've heard the stories from the guys that I worked with about an elderly man stealing jeans (I worked for Mervyn's and this is a common problem there) that pulled a knife on someone. I've also heard of women throwing punches hard enough to give the security people black eyes.

Basically, when you go outside after someone, you don't know if they have a weapon on them, or if someone else will be waiting to help them out. If you're in a position to stop them, you should be able to use less-than-lethal force (using a stun gun hurts, but the effects in almost every case will be non-permanent).
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think it's remarkably sexist to suggest that people should not attempt to apprehend female thieves using non-lethal methods.

The whole POINT of stun guns is that they generally don't cause lasting damage. While repeatedly using the gun becomes excessive at some point, I see no problem whatsoever in stunning someone trying to steal from your store.
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
I've always been under the impression that unless you're a cop or you have good reason to think that someone is going to hurt you in the immediate future, that even touching someone without consent is assault, and illegal. Am I wrong? If I'm not wrong, then the shop owner would seem to be pretty clearly out of line.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
You're wrong. It's perfectly legal to interrupt someone in the progress of a crime; citizen's arrests are legal in most states, IIRC.

Now, as I understand it, inflicting excess harm during that intervention may well get you charged with something else. But that's another issue.

In other words, it is NOT illegal to tackle somebody who's stolen an old lady's purse.
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
Good to know. Thanks Tom.
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
I think a lot of my concern comes from knowing that in many states, stun guns are illegal. Why is this? Why aren't people required to have training to use them?

I am very much in favor of cops using them (and tasers) in place of guns. They are trained on how to use them.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
used to live in Omaha (and Papillion).

what part of town was this?

FG
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
Hey FG! 33rd and California.

I sometimes work in Papillion right outside Midland's hospital.

What possessed you to move to Iowa? *cringe*
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Wait a sec. Nebraskans look down on Iowa? Isn't that pretty much a pot/kettle kind of thing?
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
Yeah, but we don't have a nick name like " Idiots Out Wandering Around.

(FG, please know I'm just messing with you. )
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
In California, you do need to take a class and be certified to own a stun gun. I agree with you on that one, Val -- that should be the law in more states.
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
If I remember my worthless California trivia, you also need to take a class for pepper spray (or at least that was the law 10 years ago).
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Yep, still true -- and I think that's a good idea too. Better than managing to spray yourself in the eye!
 

---

Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
 
*tries to figure out what the worst neighborhood in Omaha is*

I don't wanna go to that store if I'm near there next time I'm home.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

FG, please know I'm just messing with you.

---

But FarmGirl's a Kansan, not an Iowan! You've obviously stuffed yourself on cheese Runzas to the point of being insensate, Valentine014.
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
*drools*

Cheese runzas....you know just the way to my heart, Noemon.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
As far as I am concerned, some of you people are in serious need of a wakeup call.

She was stealing diapers and toilet paper!

Its not like she was stealing a TV or an MP3 player.

If I had kid no job and no money, you better BELIEVE I would steal to get some freaking diapers.

and toilet paper!

Would you guys steal bread to feed your starving family? I would. Diapers and TP are NECESSITIES.

Are you saying that she should have given up her child instead? Do you realize how hard that would be? Imagine giving away your own child.

Oh and yeah freaking right the shopkeeper had no choice.

HE COULD HAVE LET HER GO.

Then just not let her in the store ever again. At MOST she stole ten dollars worth of stuff. God forbid that she put some diapers on her child and gets to wipe her ass .
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter the amount. I hate thieves of any kind. Worthless they are.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
*Walks into Xav's place, takes some toliet paper, bread, and whatever extra cloth he's got laying about the place*

What? I'm poor, I need it!



Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Hobbes, Stan...

You obviously have no concept of what its like to be poor.

Absolutely none.

Oh and if you came to my house Hobbes, and needed clothes and food, I would give you some.

I certainly wouldn't chase you away with a stun gun.

All I have to say is put yourself in her shoes people. If you still think it acceptable to shoot her up with a 100,000 volts, then I have nothing to say to you. You obviously lack empathy or a sense of decency.

And I hate to say it, but my opinion of some of you hatrackers has gone down a notch or two.
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
Xavier

BS. I grew up on powdered milk. Lived in a small 3 bedroom one bath house on a "lot" in Redford, MI just outside of Detroit. Not exactly a rich part of town. I walked to school everyday because the bus didn't stop by my house and my mom couldn't afford the gas to drive us. My grandfather loaned my parents the money to help pay for a used car. Wanna accuse me of anything else?
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
He has a point.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Xavier does. Not sure about Stan. Do you want to start the pissing contest of who had the crappiest upbringing?
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
Not complaining about upbringing. I lacked for nothing. My parents loved and still love all 3 of their children. I just don't like being called white collar trash.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Xav didn't say that.
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 

quote:

---

You obviously have no concept of what its like to be poor.

---

close enough for me.

My thing on thieves is that I live on a SHIP. About 3000 people live on it as well. Thieves are not welcome as we do not own a whole lot. What we do have we hold onto. Does making less than minimum wage say anything? Cause I am now. Just because I know how to save my money, doesn't change anything.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
So you live on a ship in close quarters with folks given the same lot in life that they chose at the moment.

What, because people are poor, you think they choose it? What, because they don't know how to save their money like you, they're unworthy?

How do you know if a woman stealing diapers and toilet paper spent all of her available cash on rent and food for her family?

And while you live on that ship and make less than minimum wage, are you always sure about having a bed, having a meal and having a place to bathe?
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Stan/Mack,

Is that true?

fallow
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 

 

---

Posted by the perpetual newby (Member # 6468) on :
 
Xavier, correct me if I am wrong, but Omaha, Nebraska is in the United States of America, a country which does provide welfare to its citizens (and many illegal residents as well). Granted that welfare is seriously close to nothing, but it is enough that with a little budgeting, the necessities can be covered. If the woman is really in serious NEED of those things, there are charity groups, women's shelters, church groups, kind souls who run stores, and many other people/organizations who provide a better option than going straight to stealing. Maybe she did try her other options first, but it isn't likely that she asked the store owner to help her out (who knows if he would have responded favorably?) before she decided to just steal the merchandise.


 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
What I told in my post above is so you just might possibly somehow to some extent understand my position on thievery.

Obviously it missed. Sorry, let's try this again. We kick the livin sh%t out of people we catch stealing. No effin voltage needed.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
We're trying to defend a shoplifter because she was stealing a necessity?

Crap, I was out of work for a few months after I left NYC, and I couldn't afford a car. Or my rent one month. Would I be justified in stealing money, Xav? Would it be better in small doses, like if I went around picking peoples' wallets, stealing $5, then tossing it on the ground and running?

Who gives a crap what the reasons are? Stealing is never right. Even a poor family on welfare has enough for the bare necessities (raised by a single mom with no college education and two siblings--without government assistance--and never ran out of TP). If items you need to survive aren't first on your shopping list, maybe you should redo your budget.

And aren't there organizations around that'll help out families in need? I mean, even some shop owners would help, I bet. Maybe even give her a bag of diapers. I wonder if she even asked for help.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
stan, don't paint me as stupid. I get where you're coming from in terms of your views on thievery on a SHIP. HOWEVER. That situation is entirely different from stealing in order to provide a necessity that you haven't been able to procure for your family.

newby, that isn't quite realistic. yes, all of those things are provided in the united states, but somehow, even with all that, we still have our poor, tired, and hungry. are they blind as well, because they don't see all the opportunities that you do?
 

---

Posted by the perpetual newby (Member # 6468) on :
 
hmmmmm.......my hug smiley from the hobbes thread sure makes that last post a lot more idealistic.... *shrugs*


 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
mack,

trying to keep the backgrounds concrete.

fallow
 

---

Posted by the perpetual newby (Member # 6468) on :
 
Xavier, don't get me wrong, here, but if she'd asked me for the diapers, I would have given them to her or bought them for her, but if she had stolen them from me, I would have stopped her. When the situation became apparent, I probably would have given her the diapers anyway, but I don't think the shopkeeper was wrong to stop her in the first place.


 

---

Posted by the perpetual newby (Member # 6468) on :
 
oops....that last one was to Mack ( i don't know how to edit yet )


 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Perhaps its a weakness of courage. Which is harder--stealing from a stranger or asking a stranger for help?

The position of vulnerability in asking for help is dangerously open.
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
And if welfare weren't so abused sometimes. I'm not trying to step on any toes on this one. I am only saying that I have seen this done. A guy goes up to the counter with items. Pays for booze and cigarettes with cash. Then pays for food items with food stamps. That guy needs to wake up. Reprioritize his life. I do realize that not all of them do this and probably not even most of them.
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
Oh and I can agree with this solution.

quote:

---

Xavier, don't get me wrong, here, but if she'd asked me for the diapers, I would have given them to her or bought them for her

---

 

---

Posted by the perpetual newby (Member # 6468) on :
 
mack, point taken.

That said, I still don't think we can fault the storekeeper for his attempt to stop her. The real test of his character is in what happens after she is stopped.


 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I think we're making some rather drastic assumptions. What we know:

It was a women
She stole toilet paper and diapers
She ran to a car

And from this we can now assume that she's dirt poor and unable to proved for her family? I think it's likely enough that she has at least one kid to work with that, but the rest is just a random guess. Sure, I'd put money down that she's poor, but who knows how poor? Plenty of rich people steal, and there's multiple degrees of "poor". For one, she probably owns a car (if she was running towards one with a man so close on her heels he managed to stun her I think we can safely assume that she wasn't going to try and pick the lock and hot-wire the engine).

Second off, she's in her twenties, and able to run, carry things, and stay up after being hit with a stun gun. She's clearly in at least good physical shape. Admittedly it's possible that even then she couldn't get a job, but I find it unlikely that she was uncapable of finding any job anywhere. I don't know if she had one or not, but even if she didn't I would bet that the only possible reason she didn't was A)a very checkered past or B) she didn't want to take some awful position.

I wouldn't want to do it either, but that doesn't make stealing all right just so I don't have to get a job I would hate.

Also, she didn't just come to the store and ask for clothes and some diapers. Had she done this I'm sure the clerk would've kindly directed her to a charity center, or some place similar. Instead she choose to steal. I didn't say I'd come into your house and ask for some things because I was poor, I said I would come in and take them, that's what she did. You honestly think if I walked into your home (or your office or wherever) and just took your stuff and tried to leave you would've just figured I was poor and let me go?

As for having no idea what it's like to be poor: you're absolutley right. I'm not exactly loaded with cash, but I have plenty to get buy on, I've never had to subside on welfare or wonder where my next meal was. I fail to see why that affects the morality of someone else stealing.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Stan,

Have you seen that a lot?

fallow
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I seem to have come off snarky. I'm deeply sorry, I hope no one got mad. If you took offense at what I said please do the following:

1) Remind yourself that the person who posted that should've gone to bed 3 hours ago
2) Write down all the times you've thought that poster wrote something completely inchomprehensible (and figure he's just bad at expressing himself in general)
3) Please forgive me?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
Not really fallow. I do do that a lot. One of the guys that works for me may be short 5...10 bucks. Eh, here. Pay me back next payday. They do.
 

---

Posted by the perpetual newby (Member # 6468) on :
 
I think if anyone was really offended, your excellent use of the word snarky should procure forgiveness in a hurry


 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 

quote:

---

Which is harder--stealing from a stranger or asking a stranger for help?

---

Which is less likely to get you thrown into jail, away from the family you're trying so hard to provide for?

Sometimes, you gotta swallow your pride.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Of course. But for some, it's much easier than for others.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Mack, often times making the right choice is very hard, you should know as you've continually had to fight to do the right thing (and you have done the right thing ) but just because it's hard, doesn't mean doing the wrong thing is right.

Hobbes

[ April 23, 2004, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I never said it was right, mind you.

But understanding is much more helpful in dealing with other people than outright condemnation.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Agreed.

Still though, this doesn't really effect the store owner either. I mean all he knew about this women was that she stole stuff from him, he didn't exactly have a psychological and economic profile on her (or do we for that matter), he acted on what he knew, and nothing about what he knew really seems convincing to me as a good enough reason not to try and stop her.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
good on you, Stan.



fallow
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I know. I was just talking to matt about it--I prefer to understand people and their motivations. Which, I suppose, is why I'm a social worker and not a judge.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
mack,

what kind of social work do you do?
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

Stealing is never right.

---