More Mayhem and Death At Wal-Mart
Florida resident Patrick Donovan, 53, died over $393 in Wal-Mart merchandise, lying face down in the giant retailer's parking lot last week. The media reported the exact amount of Wal-Mart goods Donovan had allegedly shop-lifted---so we can quantify the value of this man's life.
In a reversal of the death of a 34 year old Wal-Mart worker last week under the feet of aggressive Wal-Mart shoppers, Donovan's death in South Carolina---three days after the Long Island incident---was at the hands of three Wal-Mart workers, who wrestled the alleged shoplifter to the ground, where the man died.
The Wal-Mart workers and one bystander held Donovan down, while one leaned on his back and another held down his arms and head. The police report says they told Donovan to stop fighting, and asked witnesses to call 911. By the time Donovan had stopped struggling, he had died.
"There will be no charges pressed," a spokeswoman for the city of North Myrtle Beach told the Sun News. Authorities said results from an autopsy in the case could take "a few months." In the meantime, officials simply concluded, "There is no criminal act." In the words of the County Coroner's office, "As far as I am concerned there is no case here." The family of Patrick Donovan is likely to conclude otherwise, and their lawyer might like to review the court records of one Stacy Driver.
On August 7, 2005, Stacy Driver, 30, of Cleveland, Ohio, a master carpenter and the father of a two year old son, died from a heart attack, while lying face down in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Atascocita, Texas. Driver was pinned down on the burning hot pavement by several Wal-Mart workers who accused him of shoplifting a package of diapers, a pair of sunglasses, a BB gun, and a package of BBs. The Harris County, Texas Medical Examiner's Office ruled Driver's death was a homicide. An autopsy showed that the death was caused by asphyxia due to neck and chest compression, with a secondary cause of hyperthermia. The Houston Chronicle reported that Wal-Mart paid nearly $750,000 to Driver's family as part of a settlement.
There is a legal case already underway in the Long Island trampling. The family of Jdimytai Damour, the Wal-Mart temp who was crushed by Black Friday shoppers, has filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, the shopping center owners, and a security company, charging them all with "carelessness and reckless negligence." The lawsuit adds: "The defendants...engaged in specific marketing and advertising techniques to specifically attract a large crowd and create an environment of frenzy and mayhem and was otherwise careless, reckless and negligent." An autopsy on Damour revealed he died of asphyxiation. While South Carolina officials need months to figure out what killed Patrick Donovan, the Damour family is well on its way toward a huge financial settlement.
Less than a week after Donovan's parking lot death in South Carolina, a 67-year-old man was kidnapped and stabbed in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Poway, California. The victim, who police would not identify, had just purchased some milk at a Wal-Mart, and was walking home when a man stuck a gun in his back and threatened to kill him. The attacker forced the man behind some large shipping containers in the Wal-Mart parking lot. "He thought the guy was going to kill him," the police report said. The elderly victim fought off his attacker, and knocked the gun under a container. The attacker pursued him through the parking lot, where a Wal-Mart security guard saw the fight, and called the police. The victim was stabbed in the hand and thigh, was treated at a hospital and released.
For Wal-Mart, such cases can be very costly financially. In March of 2001, Katoria Lee stopped off at a Wal-Mart store in Riverdale, Georgia to buy some party supplies for her 9 year-old son, who was asleep inside her Ford Explorer. She parked under a light pole close to the front entrance of the store. When she emerged from the Wal-Mart, an assailant told Lee to give him her keys. Lee dropped the keys and ran---but the assailant shot her in the back with a .380-caliber handgun. Five years of court battles later, a jury in Clayton County, Georgia ordered Wal-Mart to pay Lee $4,200,000 in damages from her civil suit against the retailer. "This is exactly what Wal-Mart should have expected," Lee's lawyer said. "Wal-Mart should have had security in the parking lot, and should have known that violent crimes had occurred in the past in this parking lot, and would continue to occur on their property." Lee's attorney provided a list of 398 visits by police to that store for various crimes in the 20 months leading up to her shooting.
Reading reports of suicide, rape, and larceny every week, one gets the impression that shopping at Wal-Mart is like taking a stroll through Fallujah. In May of 2006, the group Wake Up Wal-Mart released a national study on Wal-Mart and crime. The study, entitled "Is Wal-Mart Safe?" analyzed 2004 police incident reports at 551 Wal-Mart store locations. Among the key findings: In 2004, police received 148,331 calls for service for the 551 Wal-Mart stores analyzed, averaging 269 reported police incidents per store; for just the 551 stores sampled, there were 2,909 reported police calls for "violent or serious crimes," including 4 homicides, 9 rapes or attempts, 23 kidnappings or attempts, 154 sex crimes, 550 robberies or attempts and 1,024 auto thefts. Based on the number of reported police incidents for the sample, Wake Up Wal-Mart estimated police responded to nearly 1 million police incidents at Wal-Mart in 2004 costing taxpayers $77 million annually in legal and court costs.
Who will be the next Stacy Driver, or Patrick Donovan? Wal-Mart has been very tight-lipped about store security, crowd control, parking lot monitoring, or any of the other responses needed to put a lid on this very visible problem. Instead, Wal-Mart finds itself issuing press releases "extending its sympathy to the family of the deceased."
"We consider Mr. Damour part of the Wal-Mart family," the retailer says, "and are saddened by his death." But the rest of America is saddened by Wal-Mart's inability to spend more of its nearly $13 billion in profits to protect its shoppers, its workers, and the American taxpayers from this chronic litany of tragedies on their premises. If Wal-Mart can spend $2 billion on advertising, it can invest more in store safety and security for the public.
These incidents at Wal-Mart do not help us "Live Better," as the corporation's motto says. They may persuade more shoppers to skip the Wal-Mart experience entirely. You can be sure that the mayhem, headlines and lawsuits are being noticed by Wal-Mart shareholders.
Al Norman is the founder of sprawl-busters.com, and author of the books "Slam-Dunking Wal-Mart" and "The Case Against Wal-Mart." He has been helping local citizen's groups fight big box stores nationally for 15 years.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am all about the "first wrong done idea"
If he did shoplift and they can prove it, they shouldn't be held responsible. The same idea of someone breaking their leg while robbing your home and suing YOU for it. The robber did the first wrong, all is null and void after that is proven. I carry a gun at all times for stupid people that want to threaten my life with their stupidity. Too many bleeding hearts go out for people that do acts like this and seek damages and it isn't right. It isn't like he was starving and stole food for his children and him....That I would have to pardon and help feed his family with my money. We all know the rules of the game as well as the consequences, so follow them or go be a savage in another country, we don't want your kind here!
Most stores teach their employees to notify the authorities if someone has shoplifted or wants money. I agree with gorideabike about the personal safety issue.
And, why those employees would care that much about some goods stolen from Wal-Mart, I'm not quite sure. Does Wal-Mart give their employees some sort of incentive to catch shoplifters that would make them that willing to just go after someone? Otherwise, why would they care?
Those employees who gather at the front door and wait to apprehend a shoplifter should consider their personal safety. They could be stabbed or shot. They likely will suffer injury if there is resistance. And since many shoplifters are drug addicts, they could get stuck with a dirty needle. There are police officers who are trained to apprehend people. A telephone call will bring them while the store security people are tracking the shoplifter's visits to different parts of the store. Video of the theft and photos taken of the thief can be used as evidence even if the thief has left the building.
It makes no sense to risk exposure to HIV or Hepatitis or personal injury. Especially a back injury, which many employers love to claim are fake.
Care to provide some evidence to back up your claims. Most shoplifting, according to FBI stats is done by professionals and employees.
I guess it is just easier on your mind to make up a crackhead shoplifter. Sleeping better now?
Curious about your thoughts.
I am not pro Walmart, I am not anti Walmart. I am for ; Family, Country, God, Laws of a civilized society.
With that said I would like to ask a question of the posters here. If it comes out that Mr Donovan was
indeed committing a crime, the people acted appropriately, that Donovan was ultimately responsible for what happened, what would most posters want? The legal system changed to ignore property rights?
But if it comes out that Donovan was doing nothing, he was innocent, what do you want?
I am just curious because these are the only 2 possible outcomes. I do have a thought that might enrage a lot of people. If the first scenario is the one that plays out my thoughts are that most people will not accept the facts, and still scream about injustice. My response on that would be if you are unhappy with that outcome you would be unhappy with the law. If you are unhappy with the law, work to change the law.
If you want the truth of what is really happening : re Walmart Death listen to this podcast.
http://www.guyfinley.com/Wisdom_Tree/Audio_Clips/Listen/3354/?lyid=43101640
The way corporate execs act these days, they should have encouraged the shoplifter to take more.
Why risk your life, or even the life of petty thief, to protect the assets of billionaires who don't feel an ounce of responsibility for anything or anyone except stuffing their own pockets. The owners don't have a shred of decency, I won't shop there anymore, I don't care how much they lower their prices or how cash strapped I am.
I hope others will boycott as well, don't let them buy your soul with lower prices.
The family of the man who was jumped by WalMart workers can sue. WalMart is supposed to have a "don't pursue" rule. If the shopper doesn't stop, they don't go after you for the workers safety. Didn't work out for the shopper in this case.
Where does it say he was pursued? I have read the newspaper report many times and it never said he was pursued. If he was, then they would have probably been breaking the company rules. If it comes out later that they chased they will lose their jobs.
OH right. They didn't pursue. So I guess they just appeared in thin air to land with a knee in the back. Maybe they teleported on top of the deceased. Or perhaps they have kung fu powers and can leap 800 feet through the air.
Walmart. Where the laws of physics don't count.
Of course they pursued. I suppose you can't say that there was daylight today because you were inside. Stop being such a literalist.
Article: "... Donovan had allegedly shop-lifted ...."
This alleged shoplifter died when assaulted by 3 WM staff and a bystander: "The Wal-Mart workers and one bystander held Donovan down, while one leaned on his back and another held down his arms and head....By the time Donovan had stopped struggling, he had died."
Soon thereafter, "Authorities said results from an autopsy in the case could take 'a few months.' In the meantime, officials simply concluded, 'There is no criminal act.'"
This customer was killed after he was accused of shoplifting, yet even though North Myrtle Beach says autopsy results will take a long 'few months,' they already say no crime was committed that caused his death.
Four people killed an alleged - who alleged? - shoplifter. And then the authorities announce, several months before they expect an autopsy result that there wasn't a crime. How can he be guilty enough - as judged by Wal-Mart workers and Joe the shopper - to hold him/tackle him/pin him to the ground, yet they are innocent enough that soon thereafter the DA/Coroner pronounces there was no crime in his detention or death?
The moral could be: "Don't act like a shoplifter or you might get injured or killed."?
Investigations appear to be anathema in that jurisdiction.
Apparently the policy is to tackle someone possibly guilty of something because if that person dies the state will absolve anything.
WalMart has been accused of a lot of things over the years. They have been accused of using their large inventory and ubiquitous store locations to oust local mom-and-pop shops by lowering prices in certain areas where local vendors stock similar products with much more narrow inventory. They have been accused of exploiting third-world country workers for a fraction of the cost of US labor, and even of exploiting US workers by refusing health benefits by refusing to allow anyone to work a full forty hour work week. And they have been adamantly anti-union since the start. All these arguments are debatable.
But stampedes of customers running through the WalMart doors like race horses out of the gates is not their fault. Security guards would have been an effort in futility. Before the melee happened, local police stations may have stepped up patrols a little bit, but probably had already existing crimes to solve rather than play traffic cops for hoards of gluttons determined to get plasma TVs below market value. It takes more than one customer to create a lethal stampede, and those are the individuals at fault.
Debatable? You have got to be kidding.
You obviously can't handle the truth.
What would Sarah do?
On the other hand, anything's 'debatable.' But I suspect that loyola purposefully outlined some of Wal-Mart's anti-citizen/consumer/law/morals laws.
How in gods name did these people kill a man over a few hundred dollars in Wal-Mart crap!!!! And how is the DA sleeping at night when they refuse to press charges??
This is a sad sad time when wal-mart employees can kill you for shoplifting.
As a former retail manager and executive I am appalled. NO store employee has ever been told anything but NOT to detain a shoplifter. Store security personnel were not allowed to do so. They could approach them, they could tell them they were calling the police, but if they ran.....no dice.
For those who think that merchant's privilege is a defense that covers all manner of detaining suspected shoplifters, please read the link below.
http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting3.htm
Also, for those equating shoplifting to burglary, there is a distinct difference. Shoplifting is theft, not robbery (taking property with threat of force or intimidation) and does not typically involve breaking and entering, threats of force or violence, etc. When someone breaks into your home (and you are present) you may reasonably believe that you are at risk of bodily harm. When someone steals merchandise from a store (without using force or threats), the store employees cannot assume that they or anyone else is at risk of harm. Whatever force is used by store employees must make sense for the situation. Merchant's privilege does not give the store and its employees the right to do whatever they want to detain suspected shoplifters.
Merchan'ts privilege allows the store employees to detain a suspected shoplifter for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. Having employees chase down someone, hold him or her down, or use any other sort of bodily force is probably not reasonable. Experts explicity discourage such behavior on the part of store employees. There is almost always a better way to handle shoplifting situations.
Any store that encourages such behavior or that does not properly train employees is risking lawsuits and the unnecessary escalation of theft into potential harm to other employees and customers.
Burglary is not solely robbery. Burglary is to enter a building (I don't know how it's defined) with the intention to commit an 'offense.'
Burglary contains 'intent' before entering the building, whether or not the crime was committed.
At the same time, if someone decides to commit a crime after entering the building, then it's not burglary. There are exceptions (aren't there for everything?), for example, if the accused stays in a building to commit a crime, then burglary may be charged.
I disagree with your comment, ". . . the store employees cannot assume that they or anyone else is at risk of harm." Basically what you said is that shoplifting is burglary without the threat of force or intimidation, right? How is a shop owner to know whether or not the thief is carrying a gun? The fact that the person is willing to break the law in any manner could arguably be considered a potentially dangerous -- and life-threatening -- situation. Any time someone goes somewhere with the intention of getting something without paying for it, the only variable the criminal cannot predict is how those around him will react. If the guy behind the counter happens to have been robbed four times in the past two weeks, I think a jury would agree the store owner had a reasonable expectation that violence would probably be the robber/burglar's next step up on the crime continuum. You just never know.
Properly trained representatives can detain shoplifters. Force is allowed. Once again it has to be reasonable. The accepted standard is: you may use equal force as what is being used against you(by the person you are detaining) You state experts discourage this behavior, what experts?
Ask anyone in law enforcement what they think of merchants who apprehend shoplifters. They will
tell you that they are providing needed service to the community at large. I think most of the so called
experts have no field experience dealing with criminals. They sit back and pontificate after the fact.
Most would be too afraid to do the kind of work that I do or that loss prevention people do.
By the way, the link you gave, with the so called rules, some of them are valid but none of them are law.
Yes, the guy was a shoplifter. No, that doesn't mean he should die for it.
Wal-Mart should be liable for it, they obviously train their employees to go after shoplifters. Every other place I have worked has taught us not to go after them .
Of course they train certain people to detect and apprehend shoplifters. It is their right , they have made a decision to protect what is theirs. If someone does something that is illegal ( I am talking about their people) they will suffer the consequences. Be it legal or civil. What other businesses do is not relevant to what happened at WalMart. They chose to try to protect their property, as I would hope everyone would realize is one of society's basic tenets. In other words, "what's mine is mine, you have no right to it unless I give or sell you that right" This entire unfortunate event would not be
open for discussion of Mr Donovan had not ignored this.
everytime i enter my local Walmart I see employees greeting other customers but snub me as I look foreign so I send a letter to the mgr ...when I exit I hold my recepit in my hand to avoid being stopped every time ...I am a jeweler ...not a thief and I used to go only for basic groceries ..no filled shopping carts ...so I felt the scrutinity was wrong ...I decided to shop at local farmers market which was a pleasant experience ..the kids helped their parents which rremided me of my childhood when my parents use to take me on holidays to our fly store ...it is a valuable lesson to learn that hard work and helping fly is something to be proud off ...being a mother of a 5 yr old ...I thought how wonderful I could show my son how helpful & loving the fly was & also contribute to keeping a local fly business ....
No walmart for me anymore ....I buy local .....
BOYCOTT!
Please forward this link to everyone you know:
Wal-Mart Crime Report
http://www.walmartcrimereport.com/report.pdf
The word has to get out - Wal-Mart is contributing to the destruction of this country.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
