Great idea with the World Cup of soccer starting. Wire the stadia to take down rowdy fans at the same time.

While normally I would support lawsuits against Walmart, but what else can you expect them to do to keep people from hurting each other in those lines?

It seems to me that since you can't expect people to act better, it's best to shut down the source of the problem: the event itself. So let's sue Black Friday?

Pass a law that says the earliest a store can open on Black Friday is 8AM and that bans them opening on Thanksgiving day. Only allow essential stores like gas stations open then.

There are some good things that blue laws can do. The problem is that it's a cooperative game. Players will only act if the other players do. I think the northeast has the best shot of this since Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine already have laws preventing stores from opening on Thanksgiving.

It is a national holiday, is it not?

Hey, I completely agree with you Draug. Its just that states won't pass this law if it means a loss of revenue for businesses in that state (shoppers just going to the next state over) so its the kind of thing that will only be feasible if a bunch of states do it together.

A class action? Why wasn't the security guard just arrested for assault and thrown in gaol like he would have been in any other country?

Because the suit is against Walmart, not the security guard. I would imagine its a civil offense they're pursuing since its much easier than a criminal offense.

How could it possibly be much easier? The security guard tasered someone in front of hundreds of witnesses. I can think of nothing more clear cut. Surely that's a crime in the US?

No, it isn't a crime. He's a security guard and its perfectly legal for them to use tasers as part of their job.

And, since he was hired by a corporation, the corporation takes liability for his actions.

Wow... As much as I'm quite fond of America there are times when I thank my lucky stars I was born in the UK. Perfectly legal for supermarket apes to use tasers on the general public? Crazy!

"He's a security guard and its perfectly legal for them to use tasers as part of their job."

Are you saying a US security guard has more rights than a regular civilian? What gives him such authority? Surely not a job description based on a contract with private company?

I mean, realistically, a job description from the right people is pretty much all we ask for here anyway.

Yes, a job description and if he is a security guard for Brinks or a bank, hd can shoot and kill someone with a firearm in the course of doing his job. Guess what, Brinks is a *private* armored carrier just as a bank is a *private* company. Oh, and as long as you have the right gun permit, you can shoot someone I'm the street here. Remember, this isn't England where all the crooks have weapons but the citizenry has been stripped of any right to them.

@ Draug

I take it then you support the rights of the tasered citizen's friends in the queue to shoot the security guard in self defence? And of course if they happen to miss and hit someone else I take it you support them shooting back?

There is absolutely 0 reason for a security guard to have his rights expanded compared to any other citizen. Citizens can use force to prevent illegal behaviour in certain circumstances and so can security guards. They don't need to play police to be able to do their jobs properly.

@oct - I explained the situation. No I don't support citizens carrying firearms in crowded public places. There should be a special, harder to get permit for that... Oh wait! There is! It's called concealed carry and takes much more effort and qualification to get one.

But I do support the security guard's right to tazer someone in defense of himself or others. I was a security guard in college and, unless things have changed, to carry even my nightstick required extensive upfront and ongoing training and psychological evaluations.

@uly - ever been in a bar fight? Even if you were defending yourself, you will get arrested and most likely at least have a misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct. Citizens do *not* have the right to defend themselves in extremely crowded situations unless they have no alternative. The guards job is to see to it they *have* alternatives, so his rights are expanded. What makes a cop special? Because he is paid by the government? Trust me, just because they went through an academy (and not all do that) doesn't male them any better.

"ever been in a bar fight?"

Yes, I was, although not in a bar it was ar public place. I even depicted it on this forum. You were unhappy when I said neither of us would be jailed for it.

"Even if you were defending yourself, you will get arrested and most likely at least have a misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct."

No, you don't have to. There are these things like intent, guilt, extent and evidence which will ultimately decide whether you broke a law or not. Anectodal evidence: the fight I mentioned above.

"Citizens do *not* have the right to defend themselves in extremely crowded situations unless they have no alternative."

Citizens do not have the right to trample over the rights of others unless they are preventing an even greater harm. There are some caveats, like the one you mentioned, having no reasonable alternative. There are also others, like not creating the danger you are supposedly trying to prevent. The guard may very well have broken both, by using greater force than he had to and by possibly hurting the person more than the damage the person might have done. That's what will the authorities investigate into. I also don't say he did break a law, I'm just finding it ridiculous to say it's perfectly legal for him to taze people because of his job. He can taze people like anyone else if a greater good is at stake but his job should have nothing to do with it. He is getting paid for doing something people won't do for free even though they could - another shopper can thrust himself into the crowd to save someone but none will. Yes, being a guard sometimes means balancing between legal and illegal behaviour to protect your employer's interests, but that's what you signed up for and is nothing specifically tied to this particular field.

"The guards job is to see to it they *have* alternatives, so his rights are expanded."

He can very comfortably do that in the boundaries of his citizen rights. Unless you believe that your country is illiberal since the law doesn't give you options to protect yours and others' rights or the authorities do not respect the options the law gives you, in which case you ought to campaign for a change. Or possibly overthrow the government if the situation is really serious.

"What makes a cop special? Because he is paid by the government?"

Not because he is paid by the government, but because he is acting on behalf of the executive branch of the government, which draws its legitimacy from the democratic will of its people. He is enforcing the laws of the country. If he fails to do so properly, he will face punishment. In fact, he has to do it even if he doesn't want to. He has to do it even when outside of his working hours. He also has some of his civil liberties curtailed because of his public office. It's not like the law makes policemen standing above the law, "special".

"Trust me, just because they went through an academy (and not all do that) doesn't male them any better."

I've been inside a police academy many times, I know that policemen are *gasp* regular people. But they have certain rights and obligations tied to their relation to the government. Security guards should have none of those, as a job contract between two private parties can hardly be a sound basis for extending their rights towards infringing on other private parties' rights. And I say should as from what this thread suggests, the guards do in fact gain rights other citizens don't according to the US law.

When they put on a uniform and are responsible for the safety of others, yes they get more rights. Armored cars are run by private companies. Are you saying their guards shouldn't be allowed to shoot in an armored car heist? US law gives them more rights than the general populace.

And seeing as no story was linked here, we don't know the details so anyone assuming he was breaking a law is in effect denying him the presumption of innocence. For all you know, he tasered someone who was pummeling a little old lady to get the last something another and may have saved a life. For all we know, he was an offduty officer working his second job and very much fulfilling his duties as a police officer. Until we have details we cannot male assumptions.

How about we just get rid of Black Friday?

Seriously.

Thanksgiving: Let's all be thankful for the stuff we have by stuffing our face with food!

Black Friday: Let's trample old people and children to get 75% off TVs.

Why should we get rid of Black Friday? Destroy something that is enjoyable for some people because others are animals?

No...keep Black Friday, and bring *more* security guards out with *more* tasers and eventually the fucking animals will learn their lesson.

What is with people that think whenever one person does something wrong, nobody else should be able to enjoy that thing. Fuck that, man...I'm tired of all you douchebags trying to take away my freedoms because of the behavior of others. Instead of you people assigning group blame and holding everyone responsible, why don't you just *punish the fucking offenders*.

Damn...

I agree with abge.

No one would need to get tasered if people didn't act like animals on Black Friday. Last year someone DIED just because someone else wanted a cheap DVD player. When will this madness end? The retailers are complicit in this by starting and encouraging "Black Friday" in their insatiable pursuit of greater profits. I sit it out every year because I don't want to get trampled to death over a trivial gift. To hell with Black Friday.

I don't think we need to get rid of Black Friday. But I'd sure like laws preventing store from opening on Thanksgiving. The workers are just being punished by all of this.

And I don't know why people are arguing against the right of a security guard to do his job. If he didn't have any additional rights, then he essentially has no purpose. He has to have the right to detain someone by force to do his job. He has to have the right to use the appropriate amount of force to protect the general public. Draug's Brinks example is perfect for this. What's the use of having security guards in an armored car if they can't shoot people to prevent a robbery?

You have a security guard in your armored car because he is a trained professional who will handle the dangerous and stressful situations by choosing the best possible option to protect the valaubles and lives of anyone around. He is trained to see the best alternative Draugnar spoke about. Sometimes, this alternative will be using the gun, like when someone's live would be at stake. In case the guard decides it's better to let the robber go - that's why the company guarantees full insurance of the transported goods.

By your logic, Brink's shouldn't be operating in countries like the Netherlands or Ireland because employees in its line of business are actually prohibited from carrying guns with them. Yet Brink's still employ professionals there, instead of random bums from the street. I believe they know why they think having a trained security guards in their trucks is better than saving personnel costs.

In America, we believe that deadly force is a reasonable response to property crimes. It's still legal to shoot cattle rustlers in many US states.

Is it legal to shoot someone in the back with a taser?

Uly - Security guards are trained as well. Hell, a good number of them are off duty cops working a second job. Others are retired cops. They don't just strap a taser or a gun on a bum amd say "here ya go, you're a guard now." I worked security after the Corps while I was in college cause I had experience handling personal sidearms and self defense techniques, both lethal and non.

Tendmote - where do you see anything about tasering I'm the back, and why does it matter. If a suspect is beating the crap out of someone in the store, taser them in the fucking ass (pun intended).

Some security guards are the rejects that couldn't become cops and I lived next to one that was a college sophomore that needed to make money with a night job. One night the air conditioning compressor came on behind him, the sudden noise startled him so much that he turned and shot it before he identified the source.

I'll trust my first hand anecdotal evidence over the hearsay of Randomizer, thank you.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl0sybajjo0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1k9_pjfkPQ

Why do they make tasers look so much like handguns? Once someone draws one of those things, it would be easy to mistake the proceedings for a more-certainly life-and-death situation.

It should look more like a super-soaker instead or something.

Its actually fairly easy to differentiate between a handgun and a taser. One has a hole where a bullet comes out. The other has a big square and usually neon yellow markings somewhere on it.

@uly - my assumption was that all armored car guards had guns. I wasn't aware that in some nations they don't. So revise my statement to "use force to fight robberies" and I think our statements are in agreement.

In the video Dharmaton posted, when the Wal-Mart security guard does the "quickdraw mcgraw" it sure looks like a gun.

The video is a bit blurry, but the lower part of the barrel looks shiny (the neon usually on tasers) and the muzzle looks squarish. The guy shooting the video obviously knew it was a taser right away.

This is what most tasers look like tendmote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPRv0hXOVC0

Why would anyone use a taser for crowd control? It's a poor choice.

Because when you've got a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

What the Walmart guards should be armed with is bean-bag shotguns for crowd control and riot gear. Do you think the people would be getting all rowdy if there were a couple fully riot armored security guards monitoring the situation?