TULSA -- Police are investigating the unexplained death of a shoplifting suspect after he was detained by security employees at an east Tulsa Wal-Mart.
The death of Floyd Watson, 48, is being investigated by the homicide unit of the Tulsa Police Department.

Police said they were called late Monday to the Wal-Mart after security employees had subdued and handcuffed Watson in the parking lot.

Officers found him lying on the parking lot unconscious and without a pulse.

Watson was taken to Hillcrest Medical Center, where he later died.

You must admit one thing. The shoplifter will not repeat the crime.

There has to be more to this. My guess is the guy resisted and the loss prevention people did what they had to do to detain him.

I'm guessing....

1. Over anxious wanna-be cop put the shoplifter into a choke hold

or

2. They were on top of the shoplifter to hold him down and suffocated him.

or

3. He had some medical condition

security guards, i think, would fall under the role of a private citizen... private citizens have the right to make a citizen's arrest when they've witnessed a crime and can use reasonable force to detain the suspect until the police arrive.

i'd say that unlike arrests performed by a peace officer, a private citizen (like a security guard) does not have the same civil and criminal protection when things go wrong. therefore, the security guards (and their employers) can be civilly and criminally liable if the detention is unlawful or if the force is not reasonable.

whether or not this guy actually stole something, whether or not he resisted detention and whether or not he had a medical condition have little bearing in this case, imo. it looks to me as if the security guards who detained the suspect could be subject to criminal prosecution for the death of the suspect and that both the security guards and their employer (wal-mart and/or whatever company with which wal-mart contracted) could be liable for damages. -M

The guy who rents a room from me is a professional security guard. I read him the last reply. In a "nutshell," here is what he said.

A security guard, although CLEET certified, can protect his or her own life if neccessary like a private citizen. Only if someone fires at them. However, the guard is a visible deterant only. What should have been done if it was a uniformed guard and the suspect fled, is to tail them in order to get a description of the vehicle, including license number, and a decsription of the suspect, then let them drive off and call police to intercept and arrest them.

He thinks is may have been a young kid who thinks they can do anything.

Since we really do not have all the details, we can only speculate.

exactly... i'm not sure what oklahoma law is in this situation, but many states only allow citizen's arrests when the crime witnessed is a felony.

security could have certainly tailed the suspect long enough to get a better physical description and the license/make/model of the his car (if he drove, of course). that would have likely given law enforcement plenty of information in order to make an arrest.

i'd bet he's right that this particular guard is some kid whose authority has gone to his head... and you're also right that we're only speculating. -M

Please, security guards and plain jane employees detain shoplifters, trespassers, etc. all the time until police arrive and it is perfectly legal. It will be the amount of force used that will come into debate.


whether or not this guy actually stole something, whether or not he resisted detention and whether or not he had a medical condition have little bearing in this case

Actually, I would guess those details will have EVERTHING to do with the case. If he didn't steal anything then it would be unlawful detention (even kidnapping under some interpretations). If he resisted that could/would justify uping the force on the part of the citizen doing the detaining. Finally, if the victim had a medical condition that killed him it could clear the citizens immediately. Or, make them more liable if he was heard to mention the condition and yet the citizens provided no aid.

Whatever the case, few people just drop dead for no reason while being detained by security.

here's why i disagree with you on that, bailjumper...

while security had the right to detain the suspect (i'm thinking that oklahoma is not one of the states that requires the crime to be a felony), they only had the right to use reasonable force to do so.

since the suspect died, the amount of force used to detain him will definitely come into question... it doesn't matter whether or not he actually committed the crime, the amount of force used would be excessive either way. even if the suspect is guilty, that doesn't give the citizen the right to use any amount of force to detain him.

imo, the suspect's health also doesn't mitigate the damages. i'd think that a legal principle called 'egg shell skull' would come into play here... those liable for damages are liable regardless of the plaintiff's preexisting weaknesses.

-M

I can see your logic, but, there are so many scenerios possible we could argue both sides all day.

It would be so much easier if we could just use this method (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/selfarr2.htm).

oh for sure... until we have more details, we're just speculating. this is for sure an interesting case, though.

citizen's self-arrest... i wonder how many people actually do that!

-M

I'm sorry but no one deserves to die for petty larceny.

that's a foregone conclusion... i don't think anybody here is arguing that this suspect deserved to die.

here's an article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/newsStory.asp?ID=070131_Ne_A9_Suspe23694#) on tulsa world's site about the incident. i found this part to be particularly interesting:


witnesses told police that employees had attempted to arrest a suspected shoplifter inside the store and that he had fled into the parking lot. after a struggle, store security officers handcuffed him and waited for police to arrive, reports state.

-M