Security guard shoots, kills shoplifting suspect at CVS Pharmacy on Canal Street (bottle of water)

[Sgent]

Source: The Times-Picayune (New Orleans Paper)

A man suspected of shoplifting a bottle of water was fatally shot in the CVS Pharmacy in the 800 block of Canal Street on Wednesday evening after he attacked a 62-year-old private security guard who had tried to detain him, according to preliminary police reports and witness accounts.

According to a witness, a man suspected of shoplifting bottled water beat the security guard after he was confronted in the store, prompting the guard to fire his weapon.

Steven Barnes of New York said he was at the counter paying for his purchases when he heard workers talking about a patron who drank bottle water without paying. Barnes said the guard confronted the man. When the guard told the man, "you're going to jail, " the shoplifting suspect became violent and began to beat the guard.

Barnes said the suspected shoplifter was on top of the guard, repeatedly punching him. He said he heard the guard plead to his attacker, "Please stop, or I'm going to have to shoot."

Read more: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/10/security_guard_shots_man_at_cv.html

[Zavulon]

1. So it was something more than just over a bottle of water, then.

It was fending off an assault. I have no problem with this whatsoever - the guy was warned, politely even. What was the guard supposed to do, continue taking the beating?

[JackInGreen]

4. Actually,

fending off battery, but same smell. I would nominally have had objections, however, given age and the fact that he is reported to have had the courtesy to say "stop please, or I'm gonna have to...." etc, good on the guard.

[paulsby]

25. actually,

it depends on the jurisdiction. assault and battery is not universal. my state has no such criminal charge as assault and battery or battery. it's simply assault.

[Abacus]

44. K/U over misleading editorialization by OP (/nt)

[theHandpuppet]

48. Make that two

:mad:

[Arctic Dave]

2. Armed guards in a store?

[beam me up scottie]

8. It's a pharmacy.

Think oxycodone.

[Arctic Dave]

10. I would think it would be less of a liability to just put it behind a security glass.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Addicts are more than willing to kill for it.

The guard is armed to protect the staff and customers too.

[atreides1]

35. No Armed Security Guards in CVS where I live.

And they have a pharmacy too, also none at Rite -Aid, Wal-Mart or Target. So I guess it must be the location and not just because there's a pharmacy.

[Xithras]

50. It's not uncommon in higher crime and urban areas.

There's all sorts of valuable things in a pharmacy that criminals would like to get their hands on.

[beam me up scottie]

59. There are several pharmacies in my area who will not stock oxycodone.

After seeing addicts and dealers physically attack employees and/or hold them up at gunpoint, they decided it was too big of a risk.

And it's not just pharmacies, one young woman slit her grandmother's throat when she wouldn't hand over her scrip.

Scary stuff.

[WriteDown]

43. In NO?

Yes. Been there for years.

[dysfunctional press]

3. bottle of water? try assault and battery.

"Barnes said the suspected shoplifter was on top of the guard, repeatedly punching him. He said he heard the guard plead to his attacker, "Please stop, or I'm going to have to shoot."

there is such a thing as justifiable homicide.

[ecstatic]

5. Is there video footage of this?

The story doesn't sound right.

[theamericandream77]

13. Wait? why are we paying for water............

I think the bigger question is... are we so fucked up that were killing people for not paying for water???


It's pretty fucked up, he could have tried shooting him in the leg. But this is one of those rare cases when the security guard could have used a Taser or Pepper Spray... but he shot him, so fuck it, what's done is done. But it serves as a good example for the next guy who's thirsty... If you want to be poor.. don't live in America!

[14thColony]

15. Perhaps you should read the entire article

The shooting had nothing to do with the alleged water theft. It had to do with the fact that the person attacked the guard and was beating the holy shit out of him, a 62-yr old man. He ended up in the hospital with broken teeth. If this report is accurate, then the shootee put himself in this position by making numerous wrong decisions in this chain of events. His actions brought him to the point he ended up at.

[Sherman A1]

21. Agreed & Well Said

The guard was defending himself (and indirectly those around him) so while unfortunate the shoplifter brought this upon himself.

[paulsby]

26. no

he was not shot for stealing water. he was shot after he (allegedly) assaulted the guard (which turns the crime into ROBBERY) and the guard got to the point where he felt he would be unable to defend himself and shot the guy, AND gave the guy a warning.

my agency had a case not unlike this one. and it was for shoplifting also. when the officer stopped the guy, the guy attacked him (and yes, there are multiple witnesses. this occurred on a busy street), got him to the ground and was kicking him and the deputy felt like he could lose consciousness or be unable to defend himself further, and shot the guy. justified shoot.

nobody is justified for shooting somebody based on shoplift, or if he flees from a shoplift or whatever. but when you do what this guy did, you do risk getting shot.

and a garden variety assault would not justify a shoot. for example, if the guy shoved the security guard and then ran. but we don't know all the details OF the assault here, and i highly doubt it was a mere shove. actually, the guard had teeth knocked out which almost certainly points towards a pretty violent assault

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[customerserviceguy]

33. Shoot in the leg, that's a good one!

You sound like someone who's never seen a gun, except maybe on TV or movies, or perhaps a picture in a book or magazine.

When you NEED to shoot, the situation has deteriorated to the point that lethal force is necessary. Firearms are not fireworks to scare geese away from the runway.

[WriteDown]

45. I saw a Western once where the hero fired two shots..

and grazed both the villains cheeks. Maybe the security guard should have done that.

[SteveM]

62. Yeah, and at a hundred yards! (nt)

[SteveM]

61. If the robber were stealing a flat of gold, it means the same: don't attack...

a person and beat him/her when that person is down.

I'm 61 and in average condition. If I were under a younger man being pummeled, I think I would have made the same choice.

It is not wise or becoming to either enable, romanticize or provide political succor to violent criminals, esp. ones attacking others.

[crim son]

57. I hope so.

I am once again bothered by the folks who think death is an apt punishment for theft or even assault with fists. When did we become so vicious?

[SteveM]

63. Please do not provide political succor for violent criminals...

This person was shot in self-defense, not for stealing a bottle of water or a flat of gold. Self-defense is not a vicious act; attacking another who is lawfully charged with providing security and detaining suspects is QUITE vicious.

I would point out that the action of the security guard was to defend himself, not to inflict "death." That death came for the thug is the consequence of the thug's actions.

[proteus_lives]

6. Sounds like a reasonable shoot to me.

The asshole was punching an old man over a bottle of stolen water? Probably a long rap sheet behind him.

EDIT: Change your title, this shooting wasn't over a bottle of water. It was self-defense. You're being deceptive.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Not to mention he really beat the shit out of the guard:

Police spokeswoman officer Jonette Williams described the security guard's injuries as "moderate," with "a lot of facial injuries and broken teeth."

imo it was self defense.

[14thColony]

17. To be fair, the title is not the invention of the OP

It's the exact title the Times-Picayune used for their article, so I would suggest your well-justified concern is directed at them, not the OP.

[proteus_lives]

20. The OP added (bottle of water)

Security guard shoots, kills shoplifting suspect at CVS Pharmacy on Canal Street.

That's the original title of the article.

[14thColony]

23. Ahhhh...

Point taken. I glossed over that.

[DRoseDARs]

24. I missed it too. Sorry Proteus and shame on you, Sgent. n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

42. Shame on the OP for adding info?

Bottom line, someone's dead and someone was viciously beaten over the theft of a $1-2.00 item and that's the real shame.

[DRoseDARs]

54. Per LBN rules, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to alter the title when posting in LBN as Sgent did.

(Since sometime this morning, the thread has been moved from LBN to GD.) He didn't add new info, he altered the title to color the story in a way that would make people (who didn't and/or won't read the full article) think this shooting was about the bottle of water. The 62-year-old security person shot the guy in self-defense, regardless what the guy was or was not trying to steal.

Bottom line, someone tried to create false outrage where there shouldn't be.



Edit: Wait, what? This wasn't moved to GD, it was moved to ... Discuss » Places » Louisiana ? I don't think I've ever seen a LBN thread moved anywhere but GD. :shrug:

[SteveM]

64. AGAIN, the correction: the goblin was shot after he viciously attacked another. (nt)

[proteus_lives]

52. No worries, I've missed bits like that myself.

:hi:

[DRoseDARs]

19. Proteus, you really ought to read the rules about posting articles b4 jumping on someone. To wit:

At the top of your screen, click "Post" under the pencil icon. If this thread is still in the LBN section of DU, then you should see this where you would type a title for the thread: "Use the EXACT TITLE of the article you are posting, without additional comment. If there is no title yet, be descriptive."

Sgent was just following the rules.

[proteus_lives]

22. You ought to click on the link.

"Security guard shoots, kills shoplifting suspect at CVS Pharmacy on Canal Street"

The OP added (bottle of water) Making it seems like the asshole was shot for a silly reason. It's agenda at work.

[twitomy]

31. Another example of how news can be "slanted"

The OP ought to apply for a job at Fox

[paulsby]

27. correct. and he's not a SHOPLIFTING suspect

he was a ROBBERY suspect.

when one assaults somebody in the course of committing a theft, one is committing ROBBERY, not shoplift. assault would be a lesser included offense.

[tomm2thumbs]

7. if true shoplifter was on top of the guard, repeatedly punching him, then shoot. period.

I'm tired of these idiots terrorizing this country. If given warning, he still refused to stop beating the 62 year old man, then f*ck him. Self defense.

[Hoopla Phil]

12. Not exactly an accurate title. Man shot for assault with intent maybe. . .

[paulsby]

28. no. man shot for robbery

assaulting somebody , in the course of either trying to commit or trying to flee a theft is a ROBBERY

that's the model penal code. i've been a cop in three states, and in all three states, if you assault somebody in these circumstances, you are committing robbery.

if you assault an armed guard, you are also a fucking moron.

[Hoopla Phil]

41. No, he was shot in defense of the battery he was committing upon the guard.

Unless you are trying to say that the man broke off his attack and started running with the stolen item and THEN was shot.

I think if you ask the guard why he shot the man he would probably say that it was because he was being attacked.

So, as a cop, did you ever shoot anyone, anyone for stealing something, or anyone for a battery on a 62 year old man that could have resulted in serious bodily injury?

As a cop, is it legal to shoot someone for robbery? I don't believe it is, so why are there no charges on the guard that did the shooting? Oh wait, because he didn't shoot the guy for robbery, he shot him in defense of serious bodily injury.

[paulsby]

49. no, you are wrong

battery (battery is not even a crime in my state, it's called assault) is a LESSER included offense.

the primary OFFENSE is robbery. when you have a theft, and somebody uses force to commit a theft, that's ROBBERY. i have arrested people for ROBBERY in similar situations and i have gotten convictions for ROBBERY, because that's what it is.

there is this concept in law called a lesser included offense. most burglaries, for instance have a theft as a lesser included offense.

this was a robbery.

robbery is more serious than assault (generally) speaking. this may have risen to the level of felony assault due to broken teeth (it would in my jurisdiction), but the robbery charge is the more serious charge.

of course the guard shot the guy in self defense. that has nothing to do with the CRIMINAL CHARGES. the CRIMINAL CHARGES are going to be robbery, with the lesser included offenses (at prosecutor's discretion in most states) of assault (or assault and battery) and theft.

as for being legal to shoot somebody for a robbery. sometimes. it depends on a host of factors. but the guy wasn't shooting the guy BECAUSE the crime was categorized as robbery. he was shooting because he was in defense of his life from death or serious injury.

no matter what the crime, if one reasonably fears that. one can shoot

look at the example of a burglary. if a guy breaks in my front door, that's a burglary (under the RCW intent is assumed in such circ's unless rebutted). you aren't shooting him for burglary. you are shooting him because the law recognizes that in one's castle, it is reasonable to fear death/serious bodily injury when somebody breaks in while it's occupied.

i won't go into details of MY shooting incidents, but suffice it to say, as a firearms instructor, i know the law in this area.

if you want to read the primary case on deadly force, it's tennessee v. garner.

also note there is a different standard of evidence. to convict of robbery (or any lesser offense), one must prove EACH element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. the burden is on the state.

to prove a valid self defense, one must only have REASONABLY perceived a threat of deadly force or serious bodily injury. "reasonably perceived" is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

in my state, the burden is on the state to DISPROVE self defense. in many states, the burden is on the defendant, by at least a preponderance of evidence.

that's assuming a guy is charged and is using self defense as a defense. in this case, it's probably clear enough tht it WAS self-defense, that he won't even be charged. which is how it should be.

[Hoopla Phil]

55. So it is legal to shoot someone for stealing a bottle of water? Umm, OK.

[paulsby]

58. it depends on the circumstances

the underlying crime is wholly irrelevant though.

whether he stole a bottle of water, or a $50,000 wedding ring, neither would IN AND OF ITSELF justify deadly force.

try reading the actual case law. it explains it better than i am, apparently

start with tennessee v. garner

[SteveM]

65. "I could steal, but I could not rob" -- Lennon/McCartney (nt)

[DRoseDARs]

14. If they have armed security, then they should have video to back a self-defense claim.

This was not an unprovoked shooting and there were multiple witnesses to the assault and fair warning prior, but video of that and of the shooting would be best.

[slackmaster]

16. Unrec for deceptive headline by the T-P

I understand that Sgent was following the rules for the forum and is not responsible for the T-P's stupid headline.

[mudplanet]

40. I love the folks on DU that look for ways to justify shootings.

Like the guy in gun shop today who was spouting some of the most outrageous crap to some woman applying for a concealed carry license. "Crime goes down when people carry guns."

I'm about to change my stance against guns. Just carry and shoot assholes whenever you feel threatened. Its your rite! Especially, shoot people you suspect of carrying a concealed weapon. They're the most dangerous.

BTW, it's not prosecutable if you eat or drink it while in the store. Mercenaries shouldn't be threatening people with jail for drinking water, even if they didn't pay for it.

[snooper2]

46. I guess you would have just taken the continued beating..

Thanks, can I have some more! Go ahead- grab anything you want...and give me a swift kick in the groin before you leave also :eyes:

[slackmaster]

47. Are you seriously suggesting the shooting under discussion here was NOT justified?

If so please explain your reasoning.

[proteus_lives]

53. You're joking right?

You're calling a 62 year-old security guard a "mercenary"? :rofl:

It wasn't about a bottle of water. He was assaulting the guard and the old man acted in self-defense. Hell, he even gave the douche-bag a warning.

Did you even read the article?

[beam me up scottie]

60. Now you're just making shit up, I doubt you've changed your agenda, oops, I mean "stance", at all.

I'm not even going to address your accusations, you're obviously just here for the attention.

:thumbsdown:

[SteveM]

66. Enabling, romancing and giving political succor to goblins is unbecoming...

Your agenda is obvious.

BTW, I'm goad this NOT in the Guns Forum, but instead is out in the open for EVERYONE to see it. Aren't you?

[Chemisse]

18. Can't fault the guard for that, considering he was attacked

And warned the man.

[Botany]

30. Please correct your title

So a person is attacked and that person tells the attacker that he will shoot unless he stops and the
attacker doesn't stop and now he is dead. Oh well.

[high density]

32. LBN rules say use the article title

which is what the OP has done.

[Botany]

34. o.k. so I was wrong ......

...... can I still act huffy?

[high density]

36. absolutely

:)

[RantinRavin]

39. The actual article title

is the "Security guard shoots, kills shoplifting suspect at CVS Pharmacy on Canal Street", the OP added the "over bottle water" part.

[Hoopla Phil]

56. Might want to tell this person too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=155&topic_id=3931&mesg_id=3964

For some reason this person thinks the title is correct and the guy was shot over "robbery" LOL

[JonQ]

37. That title they chose was somewhat misleading

it makes it seem as if he shot a guy merely for stealing a bottle of water.

[MrMickeysMom]

38. So, this would clearly be a reason to use a taser, correct? eom

[bvar22]

51. Stealing a bottle of water?

There is a question of mental stability here.

[SteveM]

67. Yeah, confirmed by the ex-goblin's vicious beating of another (nt)