posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?]
posted
rivka, I think it was the owner of the store that was using the gun, according to Valentine's account.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.)
posted
*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.
posted
You're right. What was I thinking? The solution to a non-violent crime: violence using a weapon.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
quote:There is precedent (note: I am not saying it is justified/unjustified) to shoot someone who is stealing.
Only if: -they are robbing the place where you live -they are armed -you are in Texas -the bullet holes are in front
All 4 points in complete seriousness.
I know a lot of gun activists and I'm nearly one myself, but if anything we're more careful than the average person when it comes to knowing the laws on use of force.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, still true -- and I think that's a good idea too. Better than managing to spray yourself in the eye!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
But FarmGirl's a Kansan, not an Iowan! You've obviously stuffed yourself on cheese Runzas to the point of being insensate, Valentine014.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter the amount. I hate thieves of any kind. Worthless they are.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier does. Not sure about Stan. Do you want to start the pissing contest of who had the crappiest upbringing?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
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.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
used to live in Omaha (and Papillion).![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
