It's too bad that we didn't have another Michael Brown like shooting. Would anyone have missed that guy? What a waste of resources!
And let's be honest, Michael Brown wasn't exactly headed to Harvard. Wilson just saved taxpayers millions in what would have been a lifetime of welfare, drug rehab, and prison costs. Apparently everyone has forgotten what Brown did prior to his encounter with Wilson. That criminal isn't a martyr. He clearly wasn't headed to become a productive member of society.
Gotta do something to stop the overpopulation of stupid.
It's garbage like this that makes me see HH's point of view; we all know how I feel about HH's point of view.
Given the wild misunderstandings of natural selection and evolution generally present in your post, I am assuming this means you are committing suicide.
Awesomeness.
That's something an officer has to deal with? That's something the officer was making that person deal with. That person didn't want to submit to false orders the officer was giving him that he was not required to comply with. Maybe the police should stick to that which they have the authority to do instead of giving the impression that their optional requests are legal orders.
Maybe we watched different videos? I see the cop asking for ID, which I agree, seems pretty silly considering the cop knows the guy, followed by *** Hat being a total *** hat. The second that *** Hat put his hands on the Walmart employee is the second that I would have tackled his *** to the ground and arrested him. The cop was asking *** Hat for his receipt, and *** Hat wouldn't give it up. That is the second moment that I would tackle his *** and arrested him. Simple scenario: You've got a paid Walmart employee who undoubtedly has to stand there and check receipts because of **** head thieves. Since *** Hat didn't want to show his receipt, it's safe to assume that *** Hat didn't pay for the merchandise. The cop is then called over. The only thing I saw in that video was *** Hat assaulting one of the employees (you can't put your hands on people like that; the employee could have reached out and knocked *** Hat out and would have been totally within his right) and possibly a theft. Aside from asking for ID, which from what I understand is absolutely standard procedure (no matter how silly it seems), I failed to see any instance where this cop was out of line. In fact, I think he showed amazing restraint -- of which I'm sure the camera recording the whole thing played a major part -- and deserves absolutely none of the criticism he is getting.
And that's why I believe there needs to be a set of standard protocols that are made familiar to the public and that are legally applied that define civilian/police interactions. Of course there would be a couple different ones that would make clear the nature of the interaction. Like in a felony level interaction the police inform you that you need to show your hands and get on the ground. It would go something like this: "You are suspected of committing a felony offense. You must show your hands and get on the ground immediately or we will use force against you."
A routine speeding ticket would go something like: "You have been observed committing a moving violation. You must remain seated in your vehicle and provide me with your driver's license and proof of insurance, then wait while I verify that information."
A stop on the sidewalk: "I am investigating criminal activity. I request your assistance and cooperation as I conduct my investigation. You are not being detained at this time and are free to go, however I would like to ask you a few questions before you do so."
Preceding an arrest: "You are being placed under arrest. You are required to comply with my commands as I place you in custody. Any aggressive actions or failure to comply with my commands will result in physical force being used to restrain you. Do you understand?"
Oh man, I agree 110% with all of this. Unfortunately, that is not how it is done. It's cool to criticize the officer for just following the rules though. Because he's the one who wrote the laws. Or something.
What do you think is going on in this video?
1 -- The police officer is probably working off-duty as a uniformed security guard for Wal-Mart during black Friday. It is not uncommon for police departments to allow their officers to work off-duty for private companies while wearing their uniform and having the same authority they would have when being paid by the city or state on-duty.
Why even bother trying to make a point when you're not even sure what's going on. Moreover, who cares if he's an off-duty cop, a construction worker, or a peanut farmer? He was there for security purposes and he was just doing his job.
2 -- The person being detained had gone through checkout and paid for his merchandise and was stopped at the entrance by a Wal-Mart employee who wanted to check his receipt.
100% of the customers who leave COSTCO go through the same thing. Here's a possibility: Maybe the Walmart employee didn't want to check the receipt to make sure the guy wasn't stealing anything, but rather, he was asking to see the receipt so he could make a mark on it, like they do at COSTCO, to keep people from coming in the store later with that same receipt and claiming that their cartload of stolen stuff was actually paid for. I'm sure it wasn't that, but probably just another PIG out trying to put the Black Man down.
3 -- The officer is demanding to see ID, even though he personally knows this guy and you are not required to show ID to police officers just because they want to see it.
Judging strictly by the video, someone called the cop over because of a disturbance. Judging by the way *** Hat was reacting, I feel pretty confident that *** Hat was, in fact, causing a disturbance. Again, I don't know why the cop asked for ID, but I bet it has something to do with what was going on, not "just because [he wanted] to see it".
So, the guy, having paid for his stuff wants to get on with his affairs.
Clearly. He wants so desperately to get on with his affairs that instead of just show his receipt, like every other person in
THE UNIVERSE has to do, he decided to make a huge scene and waste everyone's time.
Does he have to prove he's innocent before being released from the store?
Well, ya, sort of. Why even bother giving a "proof of purchase" if it's not OK to ask for that proof? Thank goodness they make it as simple as "Please show me a piece of paper that was just handed to you thirty seconds ago, while you push your cart past me, thus taking all of three seconds of your valuable time", or else I could see things getting ugly...
Can Wal-Mart detain people without probable cause?
Doubtful. The police can't either. But when an employee and then a cop asks to see your receipt and you don't show them...?
Are you legally required to show your receipt any number of times and any number of places while on store property to prove you are not a thief? Does refusal to show a receipt equal proof of theft?
I'm not lawyer, so I can't comment on your first question. As for your second question, the answer is no, but it most definitely shows probable cause, which is why this whole scenario went down the way it did.
The guy annoyingly asserted his right to go on about his day without submitting to detainment and interrogation arbitrarily applied to innocent people.
Except this situation wasn't arbitrary. As far as I can tell, *** Hat was never detained, and if that encounter equals "interrogation", then I'd hate to see what happens in GITMO.
It would have been faster and less annoying had he submitted, sure.
Holy **** balls Batman, stop painting this guy like some sort of victim. He wasn't asked to "submit" his house, his belongings, his family, his freedom, his rights, or anything that would actually matter -- he was asked to "submit" his receipt, just like millions of people around the world are asked to do every single day. This entire episode is 100% the fault of *** Hat, period.
But he didn't have to submit. None of us have to submit. We are not subordinate to Wal-Mart or the police
This is insane. If people don't want to follow the rules of civilized society, put into place by officials that are chosen by that same society, then those people will reap the consequences. There are plenty of injustices going on in this country, this situation ain't one of them.
and especially not to police being paid by a private business to provide asset protection for them.
Except that you don't know if that's what is going on here, and Wal-Mart is a publicly traded company. And actually, public and private businesses have the right to protect their assets from being stolen just as much as anyone else; why should Wal-Mart be different than any other business?
Bravo annoying guy! Good for you.
Sad. Bravo to the guy who is actually hurting your cause? While the people who actually make it their business to get policy changed, laws changed, and mostly, minds changed get little to no attention? Right on. Good for you, *** Hat, you did it bro.
