A guy was trying to take unpaid for merchandise from Walmart, was detained by “loss prevention associates”, and taken into custody. It seems he had a gun on him, which they took away from him. Then he had a knife. That was enough for the associate to shoot the guy.
You can bet your ass that I’ll let them look at my receipt next time I shop there.
excavating (for a mind)
Don’t mess with Texas!
Ok, he didn’t just “have” a knife. He drew a knife and was coming at the rentacop *after *they’d already been tussling over the gun, which went off (rattling everyone’s nerves). In a situation like that, I’d have shot him too!
Bad situation, but really - if he was going to be hostile, you would have thought he would have just broken off and run for it - I don’t think “loss prevention” is supposed to follow you outside the store, and certainly not once you’re off store property. He needed to have either run, or accepted that whatever he tried to lift wasn’t going to happen that time.
I haven’t read the particulars of this case yet, but I think Loss Prevention generally does follow you outside of the store so they can say in their report you passed by open registers and exited without paying.
If they stop you in the store, the argument is “Hey - I was going to pay for it until Mr. Supercop grabbed me and said I was shoplifting… False arrest! Oh why was it under my shirt? That’s how I always carry things.”
“Then he had a knife. That was enough for the associate to shoot the guy.”
That’s the way you characterize the incident after assumedly reading your own link?
You don’t have to be outside the store, just in the vestibule past all the registers.
According to the report “It seems he had a gun on him, which they took away from him” doesn’t really describe the event either.
Here’s what the report said: “While in the office, Bradshaw began to struggle with employees and pulled a handgun from the pocket of his pants. During the struggle, the handgun discharged, with the round striking a filing cabinet. A loss prevention officer was able to take control of Bradshaw’s gun.”
Can they start opening fire on people parked in the fire lanes and over two parking spaces next?
And the OP’s point is…?
The guy was trying to lift a shopping cart full of merchandise, pulled a gun on the security guys, then came at them with a knife. DOA. Case closed. Stick his head on a pike over the door as a lesson to others.
I’d go along with this.
You know, I think that we really need to bring back putting heads on pikes, except during high summer. I also think that the guy who got shot was terminally stupid.
I believe pikes are on isle 4.
Presumably, then, you’ll need a boat to get there.
Boats are on aisle 7.
I don’t know if this is a whoosh. If it is, consider my hair suitably blown back. The alleged shoplifter pulled out a gun and attempted to kill the loss prevention officers. After they wrestled the gun away from him, during which a shot was accidentally fired, he pulled a knife with the intent to stab somebody. You’re damn straight I would have shot the fucker, too. In this layman’s opinion, the shooting, while regrettable, was entirely justified. Shooting him seemed to be a last resort, which, unfortunately, was necessary to be used to protect innocent lives.
He comes at you with a knife, you come at him with a gun. That’s the Wal-Mart way.
So a lunatic with a gun gets it taken away from him and then pulls out a knife; an employee fighting with said lunatic shoots the lunatic who is coming at him with a knife. Who on earth would have a problem with this?
One thing that wasn’t clear in the article, was the gun used to kill the shoplifter the same gun that the employee wrestled away from him?
:rolleyes:
He came at them with a gun first. That was already sufficient excuse for the officer to have his weapon drawn. He wasn’t obligated to throw his pistol aside because Bradshaw came at him with a knife next. Bradshaw had already shown intent to kill. Let’s not make him out to be the victim here, because he certainly wasn’t.
Disclaimer: I am not a gun owner or a Second Amendment apologist. Or a Texan. But if he comes at you with a gun, if you’re a security officer entrusted to carry a firearm, you’re expected to not only defend yourself, but any innocent shoppers who might be in the way in case the guy breaks loose and runs through the store shooting.
EDIT - And yeah, the story didn’t specify if it was the officer’s gun or Bradshaw’s gun. But still, who the hell has a problem with someone shooting him after he pulled a gun, and then a knife?
We had an incident almost like this happen where I work a few weeks ago. Our LP stopped a man who was trying to push a cart of unpaid-for merchandise out the door, and while tackling him he tried to pull a gun. They knocked it out of his hands and nobody was hurt, but if not for luck it could have been much worse.
On a side note, our LP are plainclothes and are not allowed to carry weapons or handcuffs, and since i’ve never seen a uniformed security guard at Wal-Mart I assume they work the same way. I assume the gun that fired the fatal bullet in the story above was probably the same one that was taken away from him.
I think that would be a whoosh. In the movie The Untouchables, Sean Connery says, “if he comes at you with a knife, you come at him with a gun. That’s the Chicago way.”
Cite.
(And yeah, I got the quote wrong).
So that, what, January and February? 