My money is on the security guard being completely innocent and not legally liable for the death of the thief. I have witnessed aggressive shoplifters punching and pushing security guards to the ground while making a run for it. The chances of this guard just randomly and "without provocation" killing the punk is mighty small. But I would love to be on the jury and hear the admissible evidence.
I looked it up also and I tend to agree that my money is on Pete who will be a better lawyer than whomever Dillards's insurance will hire. Second the security guard stabbed him to death. I have never seen a security guard authorized to stab people. Tase? Club? Even a gun? Possible. But this security guard stabbed this guy to death over some pants. I have to believe that there is a video that will not be favorable for Dillards.
I'm more inclined to believe the thief pulled a knife, there was wrestling for the bag involved, and the thief got stabbed by his own knife. The thought that the guy would stab him and then walk away just looking through the bag to make sure everything was there seems contrary to any training I would HOPE that the security guards get. But hell, ya never know.
Folks the shoplifting became a robbery when the shoplifter refused commands and fought over the stolen goods. If the shoplifter was armed it became armed robbery. Shoplifting is becoming such a problem in California that they are closing Walgreens and supermarkets because suspects are walking out with merchandise and nothing is being done. The DA and police over in Cali particularly northern California are not prosecuting anything under $950.00 so it is open season. The same is happening in New York. When you stop pursuing and prosecuting even misdemeanor crimes you have lawlessness. Plain and simple.
Christiansen is an ethical attorney so there must be some merit to the lawsuit. Let the facts shake out. Also, if the demographics are trendy, the insurance carrier will write a check no matter what the facts.
Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in the person's presence, against his or her will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his or her person or property, or the person or property of a member of his or her family, or of anyone in his or her company at the time of the robbery. In this case, the taking was not by force. The force came after the taking and when the security guard decided to retake the property. In short, this act might have been many things but it was not an armed robbery.
Furthermore stop stabbing people to death over a pair of pants.
If you can't defend your right to property, there are no rights. If the guard tried to stop the theft and the thief pulled a knife, every single harm from that point forward falls on the thief, legally and morally. How could it be any other way? Yes, Nevada may "California-ize" its laws soon enough, but not yet.
And if there's anything I learned in Torts and Crim, it's that life < property. That's the rule, right? You can shoot people or go stabby stabby to retrieve a nice pair of Dockers?
12:54 PM–Obviously you never practiced criminal law and just quoted your bar review notes or google summary. A shoplifting evolves into a robbery when the defendant uses force or threats of force in keeping the goods. It is not clear from the crappy newspaper article if the perp had a knife only that he was stabbed to death by the security officer.
1:33 made me laugh. I remember in Torts I went full backbencher Rambo on the professor over that case with the rigged rifle in the summer cottage. It ended roughly thusly:
Prof: So, John Rawls…
Me: [Interrupting] How does quoting a commie who was trying to smuggle communism into American thought support the argument? Of course he is not going to say "off to the Gulag" right away. Of course he will start with something simple, like "equality" in some form or another. Because he understands once you reason people out of that basic building block of all civilization — property rights — the rest will come quickly enough. From the denial of property rights it's a straight shot to gulag.
Prof: Ugh. [Turns, walks away, turns back, looks up, moves on to the next case.]
Ta da!
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2021 3:23 pm
blog esta muerto
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2021 3:26 pm
It's sad and disturbing when rather than placing the primary emphasis on the truth of what actually occurred, we put more emphasis on collateral,subsequent factors, exterior to the actual incident, such as who the attorneys are, what kind of jury is ultimately assembled.
But no matter how disturbing and troubling it may be, the hard truth is that 1:50 is quite correct.
People always insist that they are "no bullshit" types who want it given to them straight, who want the unvarnished truth, are realists, and plan their actions and live based on the truth, etc.
I cry foul. Most of our actions in life are guided by the appearance of the truth, rather than the actual unvarnished truth.
And how this particular incident is ultimately presented will be skillfully manipulated and altered for the bare bone reality.
But enough bitching and pseudo-philosophizing on my part.
I believe this is called Confirmation Bias. As to the security guard story, if there was a crime committed by the security guard, why hasn't the District Attorney picked up the case. A knife is not a self defense weapon approved or utilized by any security firm. We just do not know the facts of the case. We can assume that somehow the security guard wrestled the knife from the suspect guard and then stabbed him. But we do not know for sure. Hopefully, the relevant facts will come out in the jury trial, unless the security firm and Dilliard's settles the case.
9:56 AM–The security guard was justified when he confronted the shoplifter. Permitted under the shopkeeper's law. The guard was jusitified under self defense to defend himself and use deadly force. Hence the DA did not prosecute because under the facts there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Remember the newspaper is reporting on the most favorable facts presented by the personal injury complaint. The newspaper did not get the police report/submittal and turn down by the DA. No independent investigation made by the newspaper reporter just a piece on the lawsuit and the facts most favorable to the Plaintiff. The alleged victim here is no victim.
"[T]the DA did not prosecute because under the facts there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. . . . The newspaper did not get the police report/submittal and turn [sic] down by the DA. . . .The alleged victim here is no victim."
I presume that you have the police report and all of the submittals to make this comment. Because like you said there is no way to know unless you have the report. Please DropBox them for us since you have all of the evidence. Wait. You dont have all of those documents? Oh well then I will give you cool story the credibility that it deserves.
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2021 3:30 pm
8:26, well not to get too heavy before everyone has had their morning coffee, but yes, admittedly that is one of the basic inherent contradictions
in human nature.
We always insist we want to hear the truth, but actually what we hope to hear is what makes things most convenient and less problematic for us. Which is why when someone gives us the straight truth, we argue, dismiss, rationalize, etc.
As I will do on the 9:00 hearing I will soon be participating in when the judge gives me the straight dope on my questionable motion.
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2021 3:38 pm
8:26, 8:30, true enough, but we lawyers should endeavor to avoid going way off topic on tangents not too connected to the original topic.
This "truth" vs. "appearance of truth" philosophical debate was somehow inspired by this altercation between a thief and a security guard.
Oh well, perhaps I'm the only one who fails to see a more direct connection. As you suggest, not all of us have yet had our morning java. Mine is still brewing.
My money is on the security guard being completely innocent and not legally liable for the death of the thief. I have witnessed aggressive shoplifters punching and pushing security guards to the ground while making a run for it. The chances of this guard just randomly and "without provocation" killing the punk is mighty small. But I would love to be on the jury and hear the admissible evidence.
My money is on pete Christiansen. Sometimes the facts are not as important as the attorneys working on the case.
I looked it up also and I tend to agree that my money is on Pete who will be a better lawyer than whomever Dillards's insurance will hire. Second the security guard stabbed him to death. I have never seen a security guard authorized to stab people. Tase? Club? Even a gun? Possible. But this security guard stabbed this guy to death over some pants. I have to believe that there is a video that will not be favorable for Dillards.
I'm more inclined to believe the thief pulled a knife, there was wrestling for the bag involved, and the thief got stabbed by his own knife. The thought that the guy would stab him and then walk away just looking through the bag to make sure everything was there seems contrary to any training I would HOPE that the security guards get. But hell, ya never know.
You would hope there's good surveillance video.
Stabbing someone seems like it requires a little more intent an action than shooting
Folks the shoplifting became a robbery when the shoplifter refused commands and fought over the stolen goods. If the shoplifter was armed it became armed robbery. Shoplifting is becoming such a problem in California that they are closing Walgreens and supermarkets because suspects are walking out with merchandise and nothing is being done. The DA and police over in Cali particularly northern California are not prosecuting anything under $950.00 so it is open season. The same is happening in New York. When you stop pursuing and prosecuting even misdemeanor crimes you have lawlessness. Plain and simple.
Christiansen is an ethical attorney so there must be some merit to the lawsuit. Let the facts shake out. Also, if the demographics are trendy, the insurance carrier will write a check no matter what the facts.
Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in the person's presence, against his or her will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his or her person or property, or the person or property of a member of his or her family, or of anyone in his or her company at the time of the robbery. In this case, the taking was not by force. The force came after the taking and when the security guard decided to retake the property. In short, this act might have been many things but it was not an armed robbery.
Furthermore stop stabbing people to death over a pair of pants.
If you can't defend your right to property, there are no rights. If the guard tried to stop the theft and the thief pulled a knife, every single harm from that point forward falls on the thief, legally and morally. How could it be any other way? Yes, Nevada may "California-ize" its laws soon enough, but not yet.
And if there's anything I learned in Torts and Crim, it's that life < property. That's the rule, right? You can shoot people or go stabby stabby to retrieve a nice pair of Dockers?
12:54 PM–Obviously you never practiced criminal law and just quoted your bar review notes or google summary. A shoplifting evolves into a robbery when the defendant uses force or threats of force in keeping the goods. It is not clear from the crappy newspaper article if the perp had a knife only that he was stabbed to death by the security officer.
1:33 made me laugh. I remember in Torts I went full backbencher Rambo on the professor over that case with the rigged rifle in the summer cottage. It ended roughly thusly:
Prof: So, John Rawls…
Me: [Interrupting] How does quoting a commie who was trying to smuggle communism into American thought support the argument? Of course he is not going to say "off to the Gulag" right away. Of course he will start with something simple, like "equality" in some form or another. Because he understands once you reason people out of that basic building block of all civilization — property rights — the rest will come quickly enough. From the denial of property rights it's a straight shot to gulag.
Prof: Ugh. [Turns, walks away, turns back, looks up, moves on to the next case.]
Ta da!
blog esta muerto
It's sad and disturbing when rather than placing the primary emphasis on the truth of what actually occurred, we put more emphasis on collateral,subsequent factors, exterior to the actual incident, such as who the attorneys are, what kind of jury is ultimately assembled.
But no matter how disturbing and troubling it may be, the hard truth is that 1:50 is quite correct.
People always insist that they are "no bullshit" types who want it given to them straight, who want the unvarnished truth, are realists, and plan their actions and live based on the truth, etc.
I cry foul. Most of our actions in life are guided by the appearance of the truth, rather than the actual unvarnished truth.
And how this particular incident is ultimately presented will be skillfully manipulated and altered for the bare bone reality.
But enough bitching and pseudo-philosophizing on my part.
I believe this is called Confirmation Bias. As to the security guard story, if there was a crime committed by the security guard, why hasn't the District Attorney picked up the case. A knife is not a self defense weapon approved or utilized by any security firm. We just do not know the facts of the case. We can assume that somehow the security guard wrestled the knife from the suspect guard and then stabbed him. But we do not know for sure. Hopefully, the relevant facts will come out in the jury trial, unless the security firm and Dilliard's settles the case.
9:56 AM–The security guard was justified when he confronted the shoplifter. Permitted under the shopkeeper's law. The guard was jusitified under self defense to defend himself and use deadly force. Hence the DA did not prosecute because under the facts there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Remember the newspaper is reporting on the most favorable facts presented by the personal injury complaint. The newspaper did not get the police report/submittal and turn down by the DA. No independent investigation made by the newspaper reporter just a piece on the lawsuit and the facts most favorable to the Plaintiff. The alleged victim here is no victim.
"[T]the DA did not prosecute because under the facts there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. . . . The newspaper did not get the police report/submittal and turn [sic] down by the DA. . . .The alleged victim here is no victim."
I presume that you have the police report and all of the submittals to make this comment. Because like you said there is no way to know unless you have the report. Please DropBox them for us since you have all of the evidence. Wait. You dont have all of those documents? Oh well then I will give you cool story the credibility that it deserves.
8:26, well not to get too heavy before everyone has had their morning coffee, but yes, admittedly that is one of the basic inherent contradictions
in human nature.
We always insist we want to hear the truth, but actually what we hope to hear is what makes things most convenient and less problematic for us. Which is why when someone gives us the straight truth, we argue, dismiss, rationalize, etc.
As I will do on the 9:00 hearing I will soon be participating in when the judge gives me the straight dope on my questionable motion.
8:26, 8:30, true enough, but we lawyers should endeavor to avoid going way off topic on tangents not too connected to the original topic.
This "truth" vs. "appearance of truth" philosophical debate was somehow inspired by this altercation between a thief and a security guard.
Oh well, perhaps I'm the only one who fails to see a more direct connection. As you suggest, not all of us have yet had our morning java. Mine is still brewing.