Store owner faces assault charge after death of shoplifter

[CHIMO]

Source: CBC News

A 61-year-old Winnipeg store owner is facing a charge of aggravated assault after the death of a 29-year-old woman caught trying to steal a can of luncheon meat from his convenience store.

Police allege Geraldine Beardy was confronted by the owner of Okay Groceries on Sherbrook Street in Winnipeg as she was trying to steal the food item, worth $1.49, on Sept. 13.

She was assaulted before she fled to a nearby residence, police said.

Police were notified of the assault on Sept. 15, and Beardy died Sept. 18.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/09/22/mb-beardy-beating-charges-winnipeg.html

---

Geraldine Beardy, 29, died Sept. 18 after lapsing into a coma. (CBC)

[Aragorn]

1. Les Miserables

or, unrelated. Remember police make a lot of mistakes.

[WriteDown]

31. Can't be sure....

Wasn't Tom Sizemore apprehended for stealing cell phones recently? I always question motive.

[ixion]

103. i don't know... the motive for stealing lunch meat is pretty clear

imo

[No Elephants]

107. Excellent point. Especially a single can, worth $1.49. Not as though she tried stealing steak.

[WriteDown]

118. See post 117

Sad thing is that looks like MY family in that photo.


edited to add thought.

[WriteDown]

117. It is?

Sometimes people steal just to steal. Its not the item, its the thrill of the crime. We have no evidence that this woman could not afford food.

[No Elephants]

123. Those are most often kleptomaniacs, an illness. But what's your point? Stealing f$1.49 worth

of food for "thrills" justifies manslaughter?

[WriteDown]

126. No, not at all...

I was just questioning the Les Miserables comparison. I do wonder the ethnicity of the store owner though. Some countries don't have an enlightened attitude toward stealing.

[No Elephants]

131. No evidence of his ethnicity, either. And, even if his country of origin was not enlightened, so

the fuck what?

[WriteDown]

133. Exactly....

But we know the victim's ethnicity :shrug:. I am just trying to understand the reaction of the storeowner.

[No Elephants]

136. Maybe he hates Native Americans.

[WriteDown]

137. A lot do..

so the pecentages are there. Maybe he's from a country where they cut off your hands for stealing?

[No Elephants]

143. I already responded to your country of origin speculation.

I believe I said, "So the fuck what?" and your response was "Exactly." Is there a point in going around that circle again?

[WriteDown]

144. My "exactly" was towards you pointing out that we know

nothing of his origins, but everything about hers. Seems a little backwards.

[Gwendolyn]

138. He says she was plastered and wanted to chase her out of the store.

It's possible that the woman was intoxicated since apparently she did have an ongoing problem with alcohol, and her boyfriend had died just weeks earlier in a group swimming while drinking accident where she was present. Confronting visibly intoxicated people often brings out the worst in others.

His side of the story is that she "fell." The cops said she was hit with something on the upper torso, so it's possible that he ran after her with the bat and smacked her in the back and she fell and hit her head. It doesn't take crushing the skull for a head injury to be lethal. Like the Natasha Richardson story. There's any number of ways for it to have played out where the store owner wasn't necessarily trying to kill her or beat her to a pulp, but his actions had the same effect.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pitohui]

146. unfortunately drunks fall down and drunks can also be scary/aggressive

i'm not going to take the word of a drunk on faith that she was beaten, rather than fell, as she fled, without evidence nor will i take the word of a drunk on faith, without evidence, that she didn't aggress on the guy first -- i just have no way of knowing, i just know the odds of how likely it is that a drunken thief's side of the story is likely to be completely true (or if she was in black out, even remotely true)

it sounds like the police are investigating and i just have to trust that they will gather evidence correctly to make sure there is no injustice done on either side

[No Elephants]

150. Can you link the story you are going by? I can't find much of what you posted in the article linked

in the OP.

[Gwendolyn]

158. Here are a few...

About the drowning of her husband and also the beating. It refers to the woman as being hit in the upper torso, not necessarily in the head.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/woman-beaten-after-theft-dies-days-later-60591927.html

"The grieving process wasn't helped, he said, when while they were still searching for the body, police took him and the others to the Main Street Project, to a drunk tank. Or worse, that Harper's grieving wife and soon-to-be widow Geraldine had been detained at the Winnipeg Remand Centre for what Faron said was a court-order breach."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/i-didnt-have-the-strength-57602872.html

Here the store owner claims she was intoxicated and that she fell.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/09/23/11064601-sun.html

[No Elephants]

145. We do have more evidence that she could not afford food than we have for the opposite

proposition.

"She did not have a fixed address in the city but had been living there since June."

Sounds a lot as though she may have been unable to afford a place to live.

[WriteDown]

148. Sounds like she was a terrible alcoholic as are many

NA's. Genetically, most are unable to process alcohol "correctly." Sounds like she was on a downward spiral.

[Vidar]

99. Good reference. No death sentences for lunch meat theft..

[Xipe Totec]

2. I feel strangely ambivalent on this story

on the one hand, the shoplifter didn't deserve to die.

on the other, the store owner doesn't deserve to be punished.

[JI7]

5. she wasn't threatening the store owner's life

she didn't pull a gun or other weapon on them.

he could have called the cops .

[Xipe Totec]

8. Did the store owner pull a gun?

"Police said the charge against the store owner is assault rather than manslaughter because Beardy's death nearly a week after the alleged assault, has not been conclusively linked to the injuries she sustained in the assault, police said."

Maybe if the owner had called the cops, the shoplifter would have died of fright.

Would you accuse the police of murder then?

If so, why?

[JI7]

43. if the store owner just pulled a gun it's different than if he shot her or physically attacked her

in some other way.

but based on the article there is something from the victims mother saying she was hit by a bat. if this is true than it's wrong.

if she died of fright that's different than if she was physically attacked.

[Mithreal]

59. Excellent use of the "smoking industry defense", nice.

What kind of callous asshole writes "would have died of fright"?

Oh right, use the "You don't know me defense," I can already see it coming.

Damn, I realize this was in Canada, but this kind of discounting of life is why America is such a hard place for anyone who is not wealthy. Ugly attitudes and coming from a DU'er no less.

[No Elephants]

108. He is alleged to have hit her over the head with a bat.

Someone dying of fright because police are called is pretty far fetched. In any event, let's discuss that when it happens. Calling the police over a theft is a far cry from taking a bat to someone's head over a frickin' $1.49 worth of food (assuming the allegation is true).

[Divine Discontent]

57. "the store owner doesn't deserve to be punished"

the man assaulted a woman for trying to steal a can of food....

on so many levels you're wrong on this issue.

[Critters2]

74. A can of food worth $1.99. Canadian, even.

Sad to see anyone defending this guy.

[Divine Discontent]

80. Yes, Very sad, Friend!

[No Elephants]

109. $1.49. (Not that the extra 50 cents would have justified anything.)

[saigon68]

152. Its unfortunatly Canada

No guns allowed, He could have held her until the police came and did nothing. I wonder if this guy was in a bad, part of town. These shoplifters usually steal more than food.

[No Elephants]

106. We're a long way from punishment. Does the owner deserve to be tried?

[progressivebydesign]

183. me too. I find that if I don't break the law, I'm less likely to have bad things happen to me. n/t

[JonLP24]

3. When my friend was working at Circle K

the policy was if there was a shoplifter to just call the police and not attempt to stop them. Also if they get in a vehicle write down the license plate number. You may not get your stuff back but I think it keeps everyone involved safe.

[Xipe Totec]

4. But it also encourages more shoplifting

In the long run, it is hard to say what the safest policy is.

[JonLP24]

6. The only way I know the policy is because I asked a worker

I didn't know this before plus I wouldn't shoplift in a Circle K knowing this because I'm on videotape.

[JI7]

7. how does it encourage shoplifting to call the cops ? or get cameras

for the store. the poster wasn't saying to do nothing .

[Xipe Totec]

9. In my experience

calling the cops for petty theft is the same as doing nothing.

[rfranklin]

12. Yep, death for shoplifting seems fair....

I am surprised that you are posting on this board.

[Xipe Totec]

17. Please

You don't know me, and you don't know my history on this board.

So you can take your flame baiting and stow it.

[rfranklin]

32. All I need to know is your comments on this story...

Reprehensible.

[Xipe Totec]

35. We are done then.

Good bye!

[t0dd]

37. Agreed.

But geez, the thief might steal something worth twice as much, $3.00, next time, we better kill her just to be safe :sarcasm:

[CHIMO]

26. The Poster

That compared it to Les Miserables is why I posted this report.

We see trillions of dollars going down the drain and everything seems to become unreal to us.

Only The Super Rich Can Save Us

[jmodden]

45. Capital punishment

is only appropriate for one crime - fraudulent use of Express Lane.

[Orrex]

52. What the hell is your problem?

Capital punishment is also justified for people who significantly change their order when they get to the drive-thru window.


And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Xipe Totec]

65. +1

See?

We do agree sometimes...

:hi:

[Orrex]

66. Nice!

:pals:

[No Elephants]

115. LOL.. Welcome.

[Orrex]

Are you saying this as a business owner?

Because if you call the cops and file a report, then you have much greater credibility when you try to claim the loss on your insurance.

If you don't file a report, then you're basically trying to tell your insurer that it should give you money because you're requesting it.


While "calling the cops for petty theft" may not result in a prosecution or a return of stolen merchandise, it serves an important CYA function.

[Xipe Totec]

15. Are business owners the only victims of petty crime?

or are you saying only business owners should file police reports?

[Orrex]

21. I would hope you'd realize that I'm saying nothing of the sort.

Since the OP's article pertained to a business, I'm referring to business-related theft.

What are you talking about?

[Xipe Totec]

23. I'm talking about my own personal experience with petty vandalism

on my private property, and my experience with police as a result of that.

Why? is vandalism of private, non business property treated differently?

[Orrex]

27. Based on the OP, we're discussing the appropriate response to shoplifting in a business setting.

If you want to talk about vandalism of private, non-commercial property, then start a thread about that topic.


In any case, you should still file a police report and get a reference number so that you can submit an insurance claim with greater credibility.

[Xipe Totec]

34. I am responding to the post based on my personal experience only

Are you saying only business owners should post replies to this thread?

[Orrex]

39. You get zanier and zanier

You can reply wherever you want, of course, and in whatever manner you choose.


The current thread revolves around the death of woman subsequent to an alleged assault by a party representing the business from which the woman allegedly stole.

It's not immediately clear to me how that might pertain to vandalism of personal, non-commercial property. However, if you wish to engage in a thorough discussion about such vandalism, then you'd likely be better served by starting a new thread where the topic can be explored more thoroughly.

[Xipe Totec]

41. My sympathies are with the store owner

based on my life experience,

if that makes me crazy in your eyes, so be it.

[Orrex]

44. So, you feel sorrier for the guy who would have suffered no net loss of income or property

Rather than for the woman who's dead? I don't know if that makes you crazy, but it does mean that your priorities are kind of fucked up.

The business owner can claim a certain amount of loss on his taxes. I don't know the exact figure, but I'm confident that it's less than what the woman tried to steal. Additionally, he has insurance against this very eventuality.

[JonLP24]

48. I wanted to add

He's just facing an aggravated assault charge and in the big scheme of things that isn't much. I can understand sympathy if he was facing a manslaughter charge but not aggravated assault compared to a woman that's dead for stealing an item worth $2.

[Xipe Totec]

53. I'm sure the owner had plenty of time to decide

how much of his property was being stolen.

[Orrex]

56. How much could she have stolen, realistically?

I know that cigarettes in Canada cost somewhere around $500 per pack, but come on!

She was one shoplifter fleeing the store. Even if she'd stuffed her pockets full of the most expensive merchandise on the shelves, it couldn't likely have amounted to more than ten or twenty bucks.


Your objection makes no sense.

[No Elephants]

124. How did he know she had stolen, unless he saw her steal? Not as though 1 can would make her pockets

bulge.

[CHIMO]

61. At The Moment

It is an assault charge. Period.

Undue force may not be aggravated assault.

[Xipe Totec]

49. No, I feel sorry for the owner

who had to defend his property and is now under the microscope.

The woman is dead as a result of actions she precipitated.

[Orrex]

51. Ah, yes. The Libertarian argument.

Zanier and zanier.

[Xipe Totec]

55. Pigeonholing

It's easier that way because you don't have to think.

Just shove people you disagree with into the right slot, wipe your hands, and move on.

Nice try.

[t0dd]

58. I don't know many that would share your warped view. nt

[Orrex]

60. Hey, it's your argument.

I'm not pigeonholing you at all; I'm simply observing that your argument is the same as one of the default Libertarian positions.


Of course, since Libertarians are famous for being lousy debaters, you're free to draw from that observation whatever conclusions you like.

[DireStrike]

68. See you used the word defend

I dunno all the details of the case but it sure seems the guy went a little overboard in his "defending".

[Xipe Totec]

73. Maybe he did go overboard, who knows

Neither of us were there, but he was.

And he had to make the call, not us.

That is my point, and my only point.

He had to make a choice, and he had seconds at most to make that call.

Was it a bad call? Maybe... Probably...

Would we have made a different call, given the circumstances? Maybe... don't know...

In my mind this was a tragic accident, precipitated by the shoplifter.

That does not mean the shoplifter deserved to die.

But it does mean the store owner was put in the position to make a call, with seconds at most to decide.

Did he make the wrong choice? I would say, yes, he did.

Would he have made a different choice, if he knew he might kill the shoplifter?

I would have to say yes, he would have opted differently.

Should the store owner go to jail for his mistake?

No, I do not think so. What purpose would it serve?

This last point is the one in question, the one we disagree on.

I believe the store owner did not intend to kill the shoplifter.

I believe the shop owner made the wrong call, based on the circumstances, but not a malicious choice.

I do not think the shop owner ever intended to kill the shop lifter.

That is why I do not think the shop owner deserves to go to jail.

[Critters2]

77. He killed a woman for a can of spam. Maybe it was a bad call?

Maybe? Seriously?

[Xipe Totec]

79. Yes, seriously

Do you seriously think he expected that outcome?

[Critters2]

82. He didn't shoot her and hit the wrong spot. He beat her.

So, yeah, I think he expected that outcome.

[Xipe Totec]

85. So the shoplifter expected that outcome too?

Since you attribute such prescient knowledge to the shop owner, are you willing to grant the same cognitive abilities to the shoplifter?

After all, the shoplifter had the advantage of premeditation. The shop owner only had seconds to decide his actions.

Clearly, the shoplifter, with much more time to contemplate the consequences, should have expected that outcome and changed her choice?

:eyes:

[Critters2]

171. Yeah. He hit her in the head with a bat. Who could've seen that turning out badly? nt

[pitohui]

154. c'mon he didn't kill her for a can of spam, he killed a scary drunk on his property

the shoplifting is bullshit, nobody gives a damn about a can of spam, but i think the point the other poster might be making is, you are alone in a store with a drunken thief and in such a situation things can escalate -- drunks are often aggressive and threatening, even female drunks -- i don't know the size of the 61 year old but something in the way the article is written makes me wonder, the guy is twice her age and if a drunk half your age is shoving you around, it's possible that you might feel the need to self defend

if he really had to time to call police and for them to get there ok, but if he didn't, what's he suppose to do? let a drunk push him around? (i find it difficult to believe he just started hitting on her w. a baseball bat out of nowhere, don't you????)

i'm not saying he's right or wrong but i'm saying that since we weren't there and we don't really know what happened it's pretty ridiculous to accept the word of a known drunk and a thief over the word of the shopowner, it just seems contrary to logic, one of these people has proven herself to be a dishonest person, like it or not, lies are part of it when you're a drunk

this guy may indeed be a very bad guy, but why don't we let the cops look into it and see what develops before we jump to judgment

[Mithreal]

83. "had to make the call"? Whether to use deadly force?

Do you think the store owner was a law enforcement officer charged with the ability to use deadly force?

Canned meat deserves the same defense as your home and family no doubt. I am beginning to see your point.

I have a can of meat and you are hungry and don't have any money. Come get it.



Next time I go shopping I think I may leave a little extra with the store owner if he or she pledges not to kill anyone over $1.49.

[DireStrike]

84. That is why it is going to trial.

Or they are considering taking it there.

Neither of us were there. You think that, I think the opposite, what we think doesn't matter at all.

"Should the store owner go to jail for his mistake?
No, I do not think so. What purpose would it serve?"

If he broke the law, he should go to jail. That is the point of laws.
Also it would get a business owner off the street who probably shouldn't be running one. If you don't know not to hit shoplifters with a baseball bat....

"This last point is the one in question, the one we disagree on.
I believe the store owner did not intend to kill the shoplifter.
I believe the shop owner made the wrong call, based on the circumstances, but not a malicious choice.
I do not think the shop owner ever intended to kill the shop lifter."

Nobody is arguing that there was intent to kill. If so it would be manslaughter or murder charges.

"That is why I do not think the shop owner deserves to go to jail."

k

[Xipe Totec]

86. So you are willing to accept the decision of a jury?

I'm okay with that.

[DireStrike]

88. Oh yes, it's very rare that I'd feel qualified to question the wisdom of a jury.

I don't think it's happened so far.

[Xipe Totec]

90. Then we're on the same side of the issue

:hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. If he used the bat, then he intended to injure her seriously

so an assault charge at the least seems appropriate.

I have no sympathy for him yet.

[No Elephants]

130. Accident? How is hitting someone over the head with a bat with lethal force an accident?

A drunk driver rarely intends to kill. Yet, the law charges him or her with manslaughter. If specific intent is present, the charge is murder. He's getting charged only with assault.

What purpose would it serve? Same purpose you posted killing her served. Deterrent to similar crimes in the future. NO ONE has a right to use lethal force over a property crime. Doing so was a crime.

[Gwendolyn]

132. Right now they've charged him with aggravated assault.

They're still ascertaining the cause of death and the latest update is that if they tie it to the store owner, the charges will be upgraded to manslaughter.

Sounds like a logical, unbiased way for LE to proceed.

[No Elephants]

135. This is about the assertions of the poster.

[Mithreal]

71. Sickening. Maddening. Pathetic. nt

[JI7]

95. i had stuff stolen from me in a private setting and in business, and i feel no sympathy for him

i was much more angry with the personal theft.

but none of them involved a threat to my life. i called the cops.

[No Elephants]

122. Wrong. She did not precipitate her death by stealing a can of food. And he did not

"have" to defend all of $1.49. His lethal, violent crime put him under a microscope.

[No Elephants]

120. Did you kill the perp? If not, what is the comparison to this story?

[CHIMO]

28. No

I am not.

[No Elephants]

113. So, killing someone over the profit involved in $1.49 is more moral than stealing a $1.49 can?

[Electric Monk]

187. That's too abstract, it's only "virtual dollars and cents", not like a can of Spam. That's REAL.

The best way to rob a bank is to own one, or so I've heard....

[Orrex]

10. Citation, please?

How does it encourage more shoplifting? And do you have a link to support that claim?


The safest policy is not to engage the shoplifter in a manner likely to result in injury to the employees, customers, or bystanders. The loss of property is secondary and is covered by insurance in any case.

[Xipe Totec]

14. Personal experience

Cops don't want to be bothered with pissant stuff.

They'll take a statement and file it in the circular file.

Until it escalates and sombody gets hurt.

[Orrex]

16. My personal experience stands in direct contrast to yours

So now what?


File the report and get a reference number so that you can submit your insurance claim.

[Xipe Totec]

18. Different experience, different reaction

does not mean either is right or wrong.

Does not mean your solution applies in all cases.

[Orrex]

22. I'd say that it does in all business-related cases

Except where action is taken to oppose an immediate and credible threat to one's life.


If it's just a matter of property, then the property can be replaced.

[Xipe Totec]

29. You have no idea how much stress is involved

when you are under constant attack, even if it is not a threat to life; only property.

The problem is, you never know when it will escalate.

Remember, you are already dealing with a person or persons that are willing to break the law.

How far will they go? you don't know.


And there's the rub; if the assailants feel safe, they will do it again.

[Orrex]

33. Then why don't you just murder them the next time you see them?

Failing that, then file a police report and contact the police department directly to follow up on it.


What solution are you proposing, if--in your view--the police truly have no interest in upholding the law?

[Xipe Totec]

38. If I could catch them...

I have filed numerous reports with the police.

Hence my conclusion that filing police reports for petty vandalism is the same as doing nothing.

The end result of my filing police report after police report was zip, nada, nothing.

Did you not read my posts?

[Orrex]

42. Did you ever file an insurance claim about it? With what result?

Frankly, upon reading every single one of your posts in this thread, I'm left with the impression that you're engaging in hearsay. I don't suggest that you're fabricating your tale, but it would be useful to have information beyond your account of events.

At present, we have only your claim that a crime occurred repeatedly, that it was not instigated in any way, that you reported it to the police, and that the police did nothing about it.

That's a lot of claims to take on faith. Since, as I mentioned above, your experience is in direct contrast to mine, I am reluctant to draw conclusions from your account, except to say that we need more information.

[Xipe Totec]

46. It's below my deductible

and I do not get compensated for pain and suffering, for having my house vandalized in the middle of the night, repeatedly, over a period of half a year.

Frankly, I do not have to validate myself to you.

I posted my opinion, based on my experience.

I did not owe you even that much courtesy.

[Orrex]

54. Ah, yes. The other Libertarian response.

"I've already made my argument which is more than you deserve. Therefore I'm right, and nothing you can say will change that."


Zanier and zanier and zanier.

[Xipe Totec]

63. I'm going to end this now

because there are many other topics on which you and I have agreed in the past, and it is clear that this is not one of them.


So, I'm going to agree to disagree on this topic, and let you know that you and I have more in common than it seems like at this moment.

Have a nice night, and I hope to meet you on another thread where, perhaps, we will be on the same side.

Best regards,

Xipe Totec

[Orrex]

64. Imagine how disconcerting it's been for me.

Knowing, as you do, that we share common views on a great many other topics.

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

134. No evidence this woman had repeatedly stolen from this man, though.

[No Elephants]

141. Have you thought about installing a surveillance camera or an alarm system?

[No Elephants]

127. Maybe, but death for petty theft or petty vandalism is a "solution" that never applies.

[Aragorn]

13. which is..

still a whole lot better than assaulting or shooting shoplifters. However this incident does not seem to even verify that an assault occurred.

[Xipe Totec]

20. Where in the OP's article did it say anything about shooting?

Because I did not see that.

[Critters2]

78. Sounds like he beat her to death. Even more disturbing. nt

[Xipe Totec]

92. Beat her to death?

She ran away.

Reported the incident two days later.

Died a week later.

How does that remotely qualify as beating a person to death?

:shrug:

[Gormy Cuss]

125. If the blow was to the head and she later lapsed into a coma because of it,

then yes, he beat her to death.

[No Elephants]

128. You are believing the shop owner, but not the mother? Why?

[Critters2]

170. He beat her. She died as a result. He beat her to death. nt

[Mithreal]

47. The store owner should get one of those tear tattoos

or some other trophy display that will discourage shoplifters, am I right?

When police overreact the public screams and curses cops, but it is okay if a store owner goes over the deep end, right? Am I right?

You can't know how anxious the store owner was over filing the paper work for a $1.49 loss. Inventory would be so much harder and who wants to turn in a loss that could be prevented. He probably had nightmares about shoplifters. Try to see it from the store owner's point of view.

The store owner beat her with a baseball bat and I must say, there isn't enough love in the world, but I spit on anyone who defends her killing or the actions of this "business man". Corporate death penalty is what I recommend. No offense if I misunderstood your opinion. If I did understand your opinion than please take offense.

[No Elephants]

110. Store owners have no right to be police, prosecutor, defense, judge and jury, in one.

Especially not over a freakin' $1.49 of food, ffs.

[No Elephants]

112. Exactly how does calling the police and taking down license ##s encourage more shoplifting?

[Javaman]

114. Generally, when no one gets hurt, that's usually the safest policy, no? nt

[Gormy Cuss]

116. Most convenience store chains have a similar policy to protect workers.

It doesn't encourage shoplifting. It discourages confrontations.

[paulsby]

19. i can't speak as to canadian law

but in the US, a storeowner or their agent has the right to use "reasonable force" in apprehending and detaining a suspected shoplifter.

the difference is the standard of evidence. cops can detain based on reasonable suspicion of a crime. in most states, a person has to actually witness the crime (a strong probable cause), or at least have probable cause (a higher standard than reasonable suspicion) to detain.

of course HOW you detain is also what matters. was the use of force "reasonable"?

if i, or a storeowner were to start pummeling a shoplifter with a baton, that would be unreasonable (unless he was actively resisting to the extent that would justify baton strikes, but not merely for running, for example).

but property owners and their agents absolutely have the right to use reasonable force to defend their property, and that includes from shoplifters

[JonLP24]

25. I'm not disputing that

To be more specific I asked him if he ever saw anyone do "beer runs" and he said he just a couple of people slip tall cans into their pocket and he just watched them, wrote down the license plate number then call the police. I asked him "You didn't go after them?" and he stated what he did is what they're supposed to do. He did mention there was a time a co-worker did run after someone with a case and got it back but I believe that co-worker was an assistant manager or something to that effect while my friend was just a regular employee.

[paulsby]

50. with the understanding that

what he was "supposed to do" was what he was supposed to do in regards to store policy, most probably.

not in regards to the law, which doesn't state a preference.

i'm just sayin' the law, in most US jurisdictions allows reasonable force (including physical force). whether or not a person or company decides against that , on a policy basis is their own decision of course.

[JonLP24]

62. That was my impression when he told me that referring to store policy

I certainly didn't think he was talking about the law because I'd look it up. Reason being because my friend which is really a friendly acquaintance once tried to tell a friend of his that global warming is a myth and I shot that down with facts. He's not interested in politics and didn't care that Obama won even though he was rooting for McCain and he's more interesting in dirt biking, skating, etc then politics.

[No Elephants]

142. The law states a preference for acting reasonably under all the circumstnaces. this guy did not.

[paulsby]

162. i didn't state

whether or not THIS guy acted reasonably, nor do i have ANY idea what canadian law says about this kind of stuff. i just know that in the US, "reasonable force" for shoplifters includes physical restraint

[No Elephants]

111. Is your point that smashing someone over the head with a bat, using enough force for a fatal coma

simply for trying to walk out with $1.49 worth of food is "reasonable force?"

If so, take another look at your values and your conccept of "reasonable."

If not, what is your point?

[paulsby]

163. no, that's not my point

try some reading comprehension. i was speaking as to what the law (in the US) says. that's pretty clear, NOT whether or not what this guy did (and he happens to be in canada, and i can't speak to their law anyway) was reasonable and/or legal. generally speaking, you can't smash somebody in the head with a baton (that is considered a tertiary target with a baton) unless it is a deadly force situation (in the US). so, assuming he did so, and his intent was to do so, that would be unreasonable under US law unless the suspect presented some sort of threat of death or serious bodily injury.

[jaysunb]

11. Seems a Native Americans life isn't worth much.

Assualt, huh ??? :evilfrown:

[vadawg]

24. what should the business owner get charged differently because the thief was from a minority

not sure what the hell you want to happen to the guy,

[jaysunb]

30. Hmmmm

I think I'd like to see him charged w/ a capital crime....which would probably be the case if she had been other the Native American.
At least that's been the pattern for the last 450 years or so.

[Orrex]

36. That seems unlikely, at best

I served on a jury involving a premeditated murder, and it wasn't a capital crime.

Why should the unintended death of an alleged shoplifter be treated more sternly than a shooting, regardless of the victim's ethnicity?

[jaysunb]

76. unintended ? alleged ?

A woman against a guy w/ a baseball bat ?

I apologize...I'm getting too old to understand some things.:shrug:

[Orrex]

96. You're familiar with the presumption of innocence, I trust?

[Gwendolyn]

98. The problem is the two day lapse between the incident and reporting to the police.

They have no way of knowing what happened to her or what she may have done during that time which could have been tied to her death, the altercation with the store owner notwithstanding.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

67. So now wanting equal treatment under the law is bigotry?

That's rich.

[vadawg]

69. no wanting the guy charged differently due to the thiefs ethnicity is bigotry

it shouldnt matter what ethnicity the thief is, the question is did the business owner use appropriate force under law to protect his property, the other poster seems to think that this is a capital crime and should be treated as such but isnt due to the thiefs ethnicity. I am simply pointing out that the posters preconcieved notions about this is blinding them to the fact that it dosent matter what race or ethnicity the thief or the business owner are, and it shouldnt to the law..

[EFerrari]

89. You've changed what the poster to suit yourself.

And it shouldn't matter what the ethnicity of the thief is but since you work in law enforcement -- don't you? -- you know that the contents of American prisons say that it does.

[vadawg]

91. yeah i see guilty people of all races and ethnicities, not getting your point

you do realise that criminals like good people come from all walks of life...

[Gormy Cuss]

129. I believe the point was that incarceration rates show a preference for locking up certain races

The Pew Center on the States compiled the information from Justice Department and Census Bureau statistics.

America's prison population has skyrocketed over the past quarter century. In 1982, 1 in 77 adults were in the correctional system in one form or another, totaling 2.2 million people.

The United States has 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of the world's prison inmates, the center said.

The numbers vary widely by race and gender.

"Black adults are four times as likely as whites and nearly 2.5 times as likely as Hispanics to be under correctional control. One in 11 black adults -- 9.2 percent -- was under correctional supervision at year-end 2007," the report said. "

[No Elephants]

151. Not at all what the poster said.

[jaysunb]

81. Bigotry ?

How did you get there ?

Did she get a trial ? Was the poor guy compelled to bash her head in with a baseball bat ?

Some patterns are easy to identify. Yours included.

[pipoman]

101. Did you bother to read te story?

Nobody 'bashed anyone's head in with a baseball bat', in this story.

[Gormy Cuss]

121. Maybe because the owner only hit her because she was an Indian.?

Considering that the assault may have been racially motivated isn't exactly a novel idea. It's a legitimate question to consider her race as well as that of the owner when determining charges.

[JonQ]

175. I don't think they factored in race

nor should they.

A bit light on the details to be playing the race card.

[tabasco]

70. Stupid motherfucking asshole to kill someone over a can of potted meat

Lock his dumb ass up & throw away the key.

[1620rock]

75. Agreed.

[No Elephants]

156. Ding, ding, ding. We finally have a winner.

[Melinda]

72. For all the moral nhilists hither and yon...

[Xipe Totec]

87. +1 n/t

[proteus_lives]

93. Up to a jury to decide if he acted with too much force.

Also there's the question of intent. But I sure wouldn't let a thief walk away from my store.

[No Elephants]

140. Fine, as long as you understand lethal force is not justified, but a crime.

If you're willing to take the punishment, you can murder, I guess.

[proteus_lives]

161. I'm not sure this is murder or even assault.

You're merely being provocative. Would you let someone steal from your store and just walk away?

[Thickasabrick]

94. My son who moved there a couple of years ago said there is much

hatred and anger towards the natives by the non-natives. I was surprised there was so much racism in Winnipeg because you never really hear much about it down here.

[raccoon]

105. Guess Canada's not Utopia after all. I was thinking it was. Well, not really,

I know there are assholes everywhere. Probably even a few in Norway.

[WriteDown]

119. I am surprised that surprises you...

Native Americans have never been looked too highly upon.

[No Elephants]

153. The poster specified the reason for the surprise, though.

"I was surprised there was so much racism in Winnipeg because you never really hear much about it down here.

The assumption is that racism usually gets publicity, not that Native Americans do not usually suffer from racism.

[WriteDown]

159. You misread...

I am surprised the poster did not recognize that NA's are looked down upon just about everywhere including Canada.

[Posteritatis]

178. The US' history with the natives is often benign compared to our record up here

There's some incredibly ugly history, and the nastiest parts of it began to fade off far, far too recently.

[omega minimo]

97. Where in this thread are the words "HIT WITH A BAT"? This is manslaughter

He murdered her.

[Orrex]

102. That's ridiculous.

Clearly her death from multiple blunt-force trauma is entirely independent of him beating her with the bat.

[omega minimo]

166. Maybe she walked into a doorknob on her way out.

:sarcasm:

[Orrex]

169. I figured she tripped over the coffee table.

[omega minimo]

177. Maybe a set of antlers fell on her.

[LeftHander]

104. Fried SPAM is to die for...

[bitchkitty]

147. Reading this thread, I feel I've gone down the rabbit hole

into a world where people feel the need to defend a man for taking a bat to a woman's head over a can of Spam.

[omega minimo]

185. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in.

Where people will do it and people will defend it.


At least it wasn't Soylent Green. Yet.

[LanternWaste]

149. I always hate myself after the fact for reading threads like this...

I always hate myself after the fact for reading threads like this one. They often appear to bring out the basest and most vile instincts in many of us.

To play off one of the first responses, we have far too many Inspector Javiers among us (but in our case, I think that it's also mixed with a heavy dose of Inspector Clouseau).

ed: grammar

[Old Hob]

155. Her kids should own that storeafter it's proved that she died from injuries sustained in the assault

[No Elephants]

157. They should sue, no matter what. Different standard of proof in civil court. Just ask OJ.

[Old Hob]

160. exactly. A preponderance of the evidence versus beyond any reasonable doubt

[rd_kent]

174. Right, because a thief is not responsible for what happens to themselves during

their crime? I think the owner went overboard, but it does not negate the fact that the criminal could have prevented ALL of this by not stealing.

[Old Hob]

180. In most cases I would agree but hitting a woman in the head with a baseball bat over a can of spam

is something I would expect to see in a third world hell hole, not in civilized societies. This son-of-a-bitch killed a woman over, what amounts to, a can of fucking dogfood. Someone should return the favor.

[rd_kent]

164. Why is it that many put so much importance on the VALUE of the item stolen

instead of the LACK OF VALUES the stealer has? Does it REALLY matter if it was $1.49 or $1,490,000? Someone STOLE something that was NOT THEIRS.

At what point do we, as a society, start putting the responsibility for one's own safety BACK into our own hands? This person would still be alive had she NOT STOLEN. To blame the store owner is ridiculous. Sure, the store owner may have used TOO MUCH force, but that is another debate entirely.


Rant over, flame away!!!

[superconnected]

165. Most store owners confront shoplifters without killing them.

Thinking it's fine for someone to kill a shoplifter speaks loads for you.

When people are stealing food, people of normal mentality, give them more lee way than when they're say, stealing a Ferrari.

Maybe you should seek help.

[rd_kent]

172. No help needed.

As you ignored it I will say it again. Whether too much force was used or not is a DIFFERENT debate altogether. Im talking about the fact that a CRIMINAL stole something. Had the CRIMINAL not stolen, we would not be having this conversation.

Now, do I think the store owner went overboard? 100% yes.

[U4ikLefty]

186. People shoplift every day and they don't die.

I think there was some OTHER factor involved.

[LanternWaste]

168. Sometimes the item in question may point towards intent

"Why is it that many put so much importance on the VALUE of the item stolen..."

Sometimes the item in question may point towards intent. Ofttimes intent is due to simple desperation-- much like stealing a loaf of bread when one is hungry. All other tings being equal, I see that less as a matter of values and more as a matter of hunger.

Other times, intent may be merely malicious and greedy-- much like stealing a comic book or computer game-- all other tings being equal, that in fact does seem to go directly towards the question of value and morality.

I happen to perceive a precise, relevant and moral difference between the two.


"Sure, the store owner may have used TOO MUCH force, but that is another debate entirely..."
I see them as completely intertwined-- one wholly dependent on the other in this particular case.

[rd_kent]

173. Intent?

Stealing is stealing is stealing. Stealing is a crime. There is NO excuse for stealing.

[LanternWaste]

179. Yes there is.

Yes there is. Hunger for one. But as I'm not a moral absolutist, we may simply not have enough common ground to further share ideas in a constructive manner. Thanks.

[kenichol]

193. Agreed. Hunger can be an 'excuse' for stealing nt

[ProudDad]

188. And Capitalism is organized crime

and rarely prosecuted...

Only the poor and destitute and easily objectified get really punished...day after day after day...

[bitchkitty]

192. Bashing people's heads in is a crime too, I suspect.

There's no good excuse for murder, canned pork product notwithstanding.

[Mithreal]

182. Why does anyone discount the value of a human life? GFY. nt

[Zorra]

167. Anytime a thief steals something s/he runs the risk of being arrested, assaulted, or killed.

That said, killing somebody because they were stealing a can of food is insane.

[progressivebydesign]

184. I'm sure the person was not trying to kill her.. but if she was drunk, then it probably contributed.

The way drunk people fall is difefrent than a sober person. They go down without the benefit of hands to stop them.

[JonQ]

176. Doesn't look like she's starving there.

[Gormy Cuss]

181. Thank you, Dr. Frist. n/t

[BlueIris]

194. Nice. And by nice I mean

ugly.

[ProudDad]

189. Interesting how this kind of thread

separates the quick to objectify from the nuanced. They are interesting litmus tests that seem to root out the knee-jerk, anti-poor, judgmental folk...

The article is absolutely inconclusive as to what happened. The owner alleges she tried to steal something. She DID die. She was assaulted "before she fled"...

Some see an absolute right of Property over persons...that's pretty damn sad...

Others call her a drunk -- I guess it's even more ok to kill drunk shoplifters than regular shoplifters... (There's NOTHING in the article about drunks -- scary or otherwise)

And of course, someone lifting a can of food couldn't have been hungry (or her kids hungry -- she had 3 children)... :sarcasm:

[CHIMO]

190. Update

Blunt force trauma killed shoplifter

Beardy's mother, Louise Keno, told CBC News that her daughter had been hit with a bat and had lapsed into a coma.

Police had originally said the incident took place Sept. 13 and that they weren't notified of what happened until two days later.

However, police said Monday after speaking with witnesses that investigators are now certain the assault happened around noon Sept. 15.

Beardy was taken to hospital by ambulance at 2:30 p.m. on Sept. 15, just 2½ hours after the alleged assault, police said.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/09/28/280909-trauma-beardy-update.html
Last Updated: Monday, September 28, 2009 | 4:48 PM CT

[LisaL]

191. Well that's very confusing. When was she allegedly trying to

steal a can of meat? The OP article says it was Sept 13.