Forever 21 Issues Statement About Choke Hold Video

Forever 21, the store responsible for the security force that put a choke hold on an apparently deaf shoplifting suspect has issued a statement about the incident.

From KABC:

“We are troubled by the video and do not condone the use of excessive physical force by our employees. We are investigating this matter and will take action once we have the full story.”

KABC also reports that the alleged shoplifter was arrested and charged with robbery, but was released when he posted bail. The man’s brother, also seen in the video, was not charged. Officials said the man charged had a prior record, but did not elaborate.

PREVIOUSLY:VIDEO: Forever 21 Security Puts Choke Hold On Deaf Customer

‘Deaf’ man arrested after scuffle with guards [KABC]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. segfault, registered cat offender says:

    I don’t think they’re taking it seriously. If they were, they would have said so, right?

  2. shadow67 says:

    chokehold was bad, but how was the gaurd to know he was deaf???

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      Maybe by the fact that he was flailing and wailing and trying to speak with his hands? Most people don’t sound like that when they’re pissed. The fact that he didn’t hear the f-bomb within moments of the start of the brouhaha should have been a big clue. Did he choke first and then start asking questions?

    • leftturnonred says:

      Unless he’d just witnessed the deaf guy stab somebody AND the deaf guy was about to stab somebody else, then the chokehold is over the line. You don’t get to choke somebody out for shoplifting.

    • coren says:

      I don’t think he’s being blamed for that – but since he is, how would he know what the guy wanted? Especially since he tried to show his receipts..

    • Sparty999 says:

      It doesn’t matter… Mall security guards are not allowed to use that kind of force. Just because they give you a special t-shirt and a walkie-talkie doesn’t mean they are a cop.

      • leftturnonred says:

        Pro-tip: Cops should not be choking people out for shoplifting either!

      • lukesdad says:

        Having worked security it was always pretty consistent at the different companies I encountered… you are only ever allowed to match the level of force being used against you (or another person whom you are defending). You NEVER initiate physical contact.

        Unfortunately there is no shortage of people working in private security who want to be/wish they were/act like they are cops, yet really have no flipping idea what cops actually do. Those people always made it fun for the rest of us who had our heads on straight and understood our roles.

    • sonneillon says:

      The deaf guy in front of him waving his hands and trying to sign. And why is it ok to choke a person who can hear? He is not the police. He is an employee out on public property, he has no more right to choke somebody than you or I do.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      He probably had no way of knowing, since A) The guard spent zero time trying to assess the man before attacking him, and B) Is not a police officer and therefore not trained in how to identify and handle people with disabilities. Which is EXACTLY why he had no right to attack the man at all.

      Police officers are trained to handle this which is why it’s legal for them to use appropriate force when needed. A security guard is only a citizen, and therefore not authorized by any law to use force against another individual.

      So who cares if he knew or not – it doesn’t change the illegality of his actions. It only reaffirms why his actions were illegal in the first place.

      • coren says:

        A trained officer (at least one doing their job the way they’re supposed to) would never do this either.

      • jurupa says:

        How is the security guard suppose to know the guy was deaf let alone handicap? Not all disabilities are visible. I am aware that sign language is a dead give away that someone is deaf, but if someone does not know what it is they may miss it.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          That is exactly my point, and one reason why laws protecting assault against another are in place.

          There is a reason you need a license to practice medicine, and a badge to practice law enforcement. They are trained, including training to handle special situation like this one. They know what force is appropriate. They are taught how a choke hold like this can cause a death, and are taught how doing such an act is against the law and why it is against the law, and the penalties for doing such an act.

          A citizen – which this guard was despite his “authority” with XXI – does not have this training and is exactly why it’s against the law for a citizen to touch another inappropriately.

          • Conformist138 says:

            They know what force is appropriate, which is why even the LAPD outlawed the choke hold. Cops figured out even they had a hard time figuring out when the suspects were a little too dead.

        • coren says:

          I don’t expect him to know this man was deaf.

          I also don’t expect him to slap a chokehold on anyone for any reason other than they’re going to seriously harm someone.

        • herbie says:

          IT DOESN’T MATTER. That kind of violence is unacceptable. Period.

      • DanGarion says:

        Just going to play devil’s advocate for a moment. Where you there? Did you see everything that happened before the video started?

        It’s pretty obvious to us the people that are reviewing the video after it happened that it’s most likely excessive force, but we weren’t there, we don’t know all the details, so we honestly can’t completely be sure of what precisely happened and lead up to this.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Please, I’d like to know, when this is considered appropriate.

          When the one victimized is endangering other people’s lives? Yeah, sure, choke the guy into submission.

          Do you think that might have been the case here?

        • JMILLER says:

          As an employee and representative of Forever 21, there would be NO circumstance that could have happened before that allowed the form of violent attack short of the deaf man brandishing a weapon and saying I am going to kill all the mother fuckers int he store. Nobody makes that claim. Even if that were the claim, the forever 21 employee should call police, because if they were physically threatening customers or employees, he would have had them all KILLED because of his STUPID actions. Devils advocate or not, it does not matter.

      • nova3930 says:

        I’m reminder of the deaf guy with downs syndrome who was pepper sprayed by police a while back because he didn’t come out of a bathroom when verbally ordered…..

      • AustinTXProgrammer says:

        I don’t know that police officers can be trusted to handle those with disabilities either. I know a paraplegic who got drug out of his car because he didn’t get out when commanded!

      • macruadhi says:

        Um,semantics check, a Police officer is also a citizen, and also a civilian. Only members of the armed forces are not considered civilians.

    • Scooter250 says:

      The guy tapping on him rather than fighting back should have been enough for the guard to stop.

    • TheDisco says:

      Why does it matter whether or not he was deaf?

      • kc2idf says:

        A deaf person cannot be expected to comply with a shouted order.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          I think he means how does his being deaf change whether or not what the guard did was morally, ethically, and/or legally right.

          I think the answer is supposed to be no.

          • Dave says:

            The fact that the guy actually was a shoplifter certainly doesn’t help things out much here. Two wrongs don’t make a right but when someone is already doing wrong, it’s a bit more difficult for me to feel compassion when wrong is done to them.

            I absolutely hate the attitude some workers take when false alarms go off- thinking that the customer must prove his or her innocent rather than the other way around. That is why I was desperately wishing that the deaf man was innocent. More focus may have been given to this attitude of “prove your innocence.”

            Knowing that the deaf guy was guilty has me wondering if the loss-prevention dolt also KNEW that the deaf guy was guilty. If he KNEW it, then, well, the use of force seems justifiable (not sure if it’s legal?). Heck, for all I know the deaf man was running at top speed before he even got to the door and planned on using his disability as a defense. It’s not much of a leap, seeing that we don’t have the video which would show that part of the story.

            • Kryndar says:

              Two things. FIrstly I would certainly consider it a possibility that he “shoplifted” by forgetting something and not stopping when he couldn’t hear the alarms. I don’t know if this is the case but if someone forgets to pay for something and hears the alarm they might remember it but if you can’t hear it and keep walking it looks worse. That being said this is just a possibility, no clue what actually happened. The second thing though is that a chokehold is still a chokehold, anyone trained to physically retrain someone should be able to do it without choking them. Hell, in wrestling it is illegial to get the neck without an arm as well because of all the potential damage that can be done.

            • dragonvpm says:

              Uh, no. The guy was arrested for shoplifting based on XXI saying he shoplifted. Given that their security guard had just screwed the pooch with some excess force, I wouldn’t be shocked if the store manager might be inclined to listen to his goon and claim that shoplifting had occurred just so that people like you would immediately jump to the conclusion that:

              An arrest = guilt of a crime.

              It doesn’t and even if it did, the guard went well beyond what he was legally permitted to do to stop a shoplifter. Particularly one who does not appear to have been violent. No on has come forward saying that he was being violent or threatening so regardless of the inevitable “we don’t know what happened before the video started” I think it’s safe to say that the guard instigated the physical confrontation on someone who as at worst a non-violent shoplifter.

      • Ishbar says:

        really, really this is what you ask?

    • runswithscissors says:

      Deaf people can’t hear exit alarms.
      Deaf people can’t hear shouted directives/warnings/”freeze!”/”Come back here!”
      Deaf people can’t hear a non-uniformed security guard (as the one in the video) identify himself as security.
      Deaf people sometimes can’t speak very well to explain or ask what’s going on.

    • SJActress says:

      Gosh, I don’t know…perhaps because the deaf guy’s deaf brother was running around in circles, not touching or attacking anyone, and pointing to his ears frantically while making unintelligible noises (except when he was clearly saying the word DEAF every five seconds of course). If I can tell that from a smartphone video, I think the guard could have in person.

  3. BadgerPudding says:

    I don’t care who the victim is or what he did. What this video depicts is unambiguous assault and should be prosecuted. The guard, if he hasn’t lost his job already, needs to be fired immediately.

    • user765 says:

      Agreed. Even if the victim wasn’t deaf, and stole $100 worth of clothing (that would be a whole wardrobe at that store) nothing warrants a choke hold. Especially after he taps out repeatedly.

      • coren says:

        lol at Forever 21? I don’t think so

        • user765 says:

          I don’t ever shop there, I am both male and an adult, but from what I understand it is a very cheap store, no?

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            I wish I shopped there so I could start boycotting it.

          • MamaBug says:

            it is. Trendy, cheap clothes. If you’re on a budget you can often hunt and find something work-appropriate there. Note I said “hunt”. But yes, who knows why he was in there – transsexual? gay? shopping for girlfriend? None of my business, the whole thing is atrocious.

            • Vanilla5 says:

              You’re right – it doesn’t matter – but some XXI stores (the new, glitzy name for Forever 21) have men’s departments. Methinks they’re trying to come up in the world and be like a discount Express with a double store with men’s & women’s clothing.

    • Bob says:

      Sounds like a suing.

  4. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Couldn’t care less if that guy had a record or not.

    1) XXI staff is not actually aware of criminal records at time of illegally detaining him.
    2) A criminal record does not excuse a non-police officer from using any force, let alone excessive

    • DanRydell says:

      His record is irrelevant, but whether he actually shoplifted is.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        So if he shoplifted it’s okay for the him to be choked? Is that what you are saying?

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          No. It’s not ok for the security guard to have choked him. Unless his previous conviction was also for robbery. Then he’s an criminal and understood the risks of his criminal activities.

          He doesn’t deserve to die for shoplifting. Then again, assuming that he first conviction was for shoplifting, too, he should have learned his lesson the first time. I have sympathy for the innocent, not the idiotic.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            Wow.

            So, you think the security guard had access to police records and quickly looked this guy up to confirm he had a previous robbery charge?

            What if a police officer looked it up, would he be allowed to choke him? Could you site ANY CASE LAW that supports your assinine outline on the accused?

            Our laws governing this country systematically deny the ability to use previous crimes as judgement for current ones. Not to mention he’s only accused of a crime until proven to have commited a crime. Even if it were morally or legally right to choke a man previously guilty of shoplifting during his 2nd shoplifting endeavor (hint: it’s not) it certainly would not be permissable to choke him until AFTER he was found guilty of shoplifting, not when merely accused.

            • pantheonoutcast says:

              No, no, no, you read me wrong. I encourage you to look at the previous article wherein I vehemently posted 1100 times about how there is no justifiable reason this man had to have been choked to near death.

              However, I have less sympathy for him IF he is a repeat offender. If a man is hit by a drunk driver, and killed, I would feel rage towards the driver and hope he rots in jail. If the man that was killed was a serial sex offender, then I probably won’t be able to stop laughing.

              I’ll say it again – the deaf man does not deserve to be choked to death. However, upon hearing that he is an ex con, and he was indeed shoplifting at the time and IF that previous conviction was was for shoplifting, the amount of sympathy I have for him is diminished.

              • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                I guess I can understand that reasoning, but I just can’t get behind it. I view each incident separately. At the time his life is in danger, not knowing who this person is or their previous crimes, I will fight to save his life.

                Any deparate indescretions are unfortunate, but will not change my view of how wrongly he was treated.

      • tonberryqueen says:

        Dude, when people shoplift, you aren’t legally allowed to touch them. Or even physically block their exit from the store. At least not in any state I’m aware of.

        The best I was able to do was talking people into handing me their bag/cell phone/whatever as they kept going through the gate. Then I stood there looking stern and holding said item until they admitted they were a thieving douchebag and pulled the CDs up out of their underwear.

        • jurupa says:

          In California you CAN physically detain a shoplifter. Look up California Penal Code Section 490.5.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            I read it:

            (2) In making the detention a merchant, theater owner, or a person
            employed by a library facility may use a reasonable amount of
            nondeadly force necessary to protect himself or herself and to
            prevent escape of the person detained or the loss of tangible or
            intangible property.

            This was neither reasonable, nor nondeadly force.

            • craptastico says:

              it didn’t kill him, so technically it was nondeadly. it was a basic submission move. and you clearly wrote where they are able to detain them to keep them from escaping, so where’s the problem?

              • jurupa says:

                Choking someone is non deadly force?

                • craptastico says:

                  it wasn’t a choke hold, it was a controlled submission move. that guard could have done a lot more damage, but didn’t. he used appropriate force

                  • jurupa says:

                    Ya if the guy was violent and/or had a weapon. Neither of which seem to be the case. The security guard used excessive force for a simple crime.

                    • sonneillon says:

                      he used excessive force for no crime. The deaf guy did not do anything wrong. They made a mistake and forgot to deactivate the tag.

                  • ludwigk says:

                    Non-deadly does not automatically mean the force was reasonable or appropriate. Reasonableness must be considered against the threat of harm/loss to ones-self. If someone slaps you in the face, punching them would be an unreasonable amount of force, because it is in excess of what is necessary to avoid being slapped.

                    Unless you are that deaf man, you don’t really have grounds for establishing whether the force used was reasonable. When a guard has not determined that there is an imminent risk of loss, ANY force, even standing in someone’s way, is excessive.

                  • Genocidicbunny says:

                    No, he did not. A proper choke hold will have someone pass out in seconds. What the guard did was more than likely to kill the deaf guy rather than make him pass out.

              • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                You go ahead and try that arguement in court, okay?

                “Your honor, the bullet didn’t kill him, so I’m not guilty right?”

                Dumbest…arguement…ever.

                • craptastico says:

                  a choke hold isn’t deadly unless force is applied to the neck. obviously there was very little applied b/c the guy kept slipping out. i think the guard used a lot of restraint in the amount of force used. if you disagree, i suggest you not resort to being a thief

                  • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                    Again, try using that argument in court. You will lose, I promise you.

                    No jury, except twelve wrestlers, will agree that was reasonable and non-life threatening.

                    You may believe otherwise, but the majority does not.

                    • Kryndar says:

                      Actually in real wrestling just having a hold on the neck without having an arm as well is not allowed because of the damage it can cause.

              • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

                So if I suspect you, Craptastico, or stealing from my store, and I shoot you, but only in the foot–and you live, then using the firearm wansn’t “deadly force”. Makes perfect sense. For the record, lethal force only needs to have the reasonable likelihood to kill you, not that it kills you 100% of the time.

                You did research what a choke hold, or other carotid artery restricting holds can do to people, right?

                • craptastico says:

                  if he was restricting his carotid artery the guy wouldn’t have slipped out of the hold so many times. the guard was not being excessive.

                  • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

                    That’s a side effect of the “guard” being improperly trained, not evidence that those holds aren’t effective or dangerous. But do keep moving the goalpost and not addressing “lethal force”.

              • BuyerOfGoods3 says:

                It is not a basic submission move when it is done for 4 minutes straight. No. It’s NOT that hard to get someone’s hands behind their back – and that is ALWAYS first call; not strangulation. Ask any Self Respecting cop.

              • JF says:

                …and it wouldn’t necessarily kill you if I shot you in the leg either.

                • craptastico says:

                  only if the bullet’s made of kryptonite

                • dangermike says:

                  Leg shots are surprisingly deadly. Even with immediate first aid, a little nick of the femoral artery can rarely been stopped from bleeding out fast enough.

              • Pax says:

                If I shoot you in the chest with a bullet with the full intent to make you die, but you manage to survive … does that make the act of shooting you “nondeadly force” …?

                Of course not.

                What matters is not “did the person live through it”. What matters is, “did the level of force used stand a reasonable chance of causing death”. If the answer is “yes”, then it was deadly force.

            • jurupa says:

              I totally agree with you. I was just point out to tonberryqueen that in California retailers can use physical force to detain someone, as long as it is reasonable.

            • tonberryqueen says:

              I’d actually be curious to see whether this would apply in this particular case. He had actually left the premises, hadn’t he? That looks like a public walkway. I’m assuming there’s a limit to one’s ability to pursue someone under that law.

              • Conformist138 says:

                Once they are off your property, they’re gone. This one was jerk tackling a man and nearly rendering him unconscious, which can count as anything from assault to attempted murder (assault in this case, but the choke hold is illegal because it’s easily lethal). That the jerk was a security guard is meaningless, that the deaf man was deaf is meaningless, and the potential shoplifting is meaningless. A citizen’s arrest requires the citizen to have seen the crime committed, not just suspect it.

                I know we’re missing some other information about this story, but I am just baffled as to how the deaf guy was arrested and the guard wasn’t.

        • dadelus says:

          Guess that means you’ve never heard of Kansas or Missouri. I realize they’re in flyover country, but they aren’t really that big of a secret. :)

          Seriously though, in both states you can physically restrain a shoplifter as long as you immediately notify the appropriate authorities. Although we were warned against choking anyone since there is just too much that can go wrong with holds like that.

          • tonberryqueen says:

            So, there are states where it’s legal. I thought there might be some.

            Still a stupid idea, though. Better to let someone get away with merchandise than have an employee potentially end up in the hospital if the thief fights back.

  5. sonneillon says:

    robbery? Good god, why would they even do that under any circumstance. I think the Forever 21 Security guard and manager lied to the police. I hope they go to prison for aggravated battery and conspiracy.

  6. reishka says:

    I said it before and I’ll say it again: even if he WAS shoplifting, there is NO reason to use that kind of force on ANYONE. Security here really stepped over the line and was completely inappropriate in how they handled the situation, regardless if the person was hearing, deaf, shoplifting, or not. This kind of force should ONLY be used if peoples lives are in danger, against the one doing the endangering.

    • craptastico says:

      THAT kind of force? all the guy did was subdue him. after reading people’s comments here i was expecting it to be overly violent, with punches and kicks or elbows thrown, but all the guard did was subdue him. granted he still doesn’t have the right to do that, but he ought to. if someone breaks into my house and steals from me, i’d detain him. this shouldn’t be any different

      • the_bursar says:

        It is different. When someone enters your house, he is there illegally. It would not be unreasonable to suspect that you might be in physical danger as well.
        In this case they were in a public place without being a threat to anyone.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        You really don’t seem to get that for some people, this kind of hold could actually kill them even if proper restraint was used. Namely the ederly, handicapped (like a lung injury),
        anyone with recent surgery, ashthma suffers, and scores of other things that can be triggered by severe stress or lack of oxygen.

        Which is why this behavior is illegal, never considered reasonable, nor non-deadly. This is why police officers avoid this sort of maneuver if ever possible and use less dangerous maneuvers like a taser (emphasis on less). It’s simply the fact that too much can go wrong in this situation that it’s banned outright by the rule of law.

      • Genocidicbunny says:

        Ive said it above, and Ill say it again: this was not proper in any way possible. The guard had little idea what he was doing. He could have easily killed the guy through asphyxiation, or snapped his neck, either killing the deaf guy if he’s lucky, or leaving him paralyzed.

        There is a reason cops arent allowed to use the choke hold — the subduer must be extremely well trained to do it properly. There’s only a few cases I can think of where a choke hold may be justified — namely the person who needs to be put into a choke hold is about to kill someone else. Besides that extreme, there is no reason to do it.

      • Conformist138 says:

        No, it is VERY different and if you don’t see why, I want your voting rights and driver’s license revoked, you scare me.

        This was a guy who left a store and was on a public street. Another man, suspecting or not, did not SEE him commit a crime, yet he tackled him and put him into an illegal and easily lethal hold. In his attempt to “subdue” the man, he turned his face blue. He also ignored the OBVIOUS pleas of the friend/brother. No, we can’t get the right to do this kind of thing, attacking each other on the street to protect a few dollars in stuff all on a hunch.

        Jesus, why do people think that we should pull out all the stops just to keep some *stuff* from harm’s way. We actually place some merchandise in higher regard than the near-slaves that make them, higher than the clerks selling it, and higher than any human that goes near it. If the stuff is cheap enough and *cool* enough, there are people that just don’t have a limit to what they would to to protect their “property”

  7. octowussy says:

    A headlock is not a chokehold.

    • BadgerPudding says:

      The guy’s face turned f’ing purple.

    • Suburban Idiot says:

      If you’re choking someone to the point that they’re turning blue, it’s a chokehold.

    • andyg8180 says:

      that wasnt a headlock lol that was a choke… headlocks don’t go over the chin or into the neck region… The guy was even tapping for his life and his face turned blue…

    • MerlynNY says:

      Are you kidding me? The photo shows the guards forearm clearly under the alleged shoplifter’s chin, which is indeed a chokehold. It wouldn’t take much effort at all to choke the person out, or worse yet, suffocate him. Also, did you take a look at the color of the guys face in the chokehold?

      The security guard should not only be fired, but also brought up on charges.

    • dolemite says:

      Yeah..it’s kind of called a headlock because you wrap your arms around their head. Not their throat.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      They are both neck compression techniques and potentially deadly.

    • user765 says:

      I guess if you want to get technical it was a sleeper hold with a little cobra clutch mixed in at times.

    • AI says:

      It’s a classic sleeper. Get ‘em Hulk Hogan.

    • rage says:

      His face was turning blue for the hell of it dumb ass.

  8. eccsame says:

    So he was shoplifting after all. Or, at least, he wasn’t “innocent enough” to be released without charges.
    Perhaps he was struggling not because he was deaf, but because he didn’t want to be arrested?

    Not that this is okay. The security guard should, at the very least, lose his job. But would everyone be making such a stink if it was a non-handicapped shoplifter taken down by a security guard?

    • MerlynNY says:

      I’d be making the exact same stink. The security guard has no right to put a shoplifter in a choke hold. Yes, he can be detained, heck, tackle the guy if he runs, but a chokehold? That’s beyond excessive.

    • BadgerPudding says:

      Yes, I would be just as disgusted if anyone was assaulted in this manner. I hope this guard is never able to find employment again and lives the rest of his miserable, rage-filled life eating out of dumpsters.

    • houseboat says:

      Being arrested for shoplifing is not the same thing as being found guilty of shoplifing, you understand that right?

      • techstar25 says:

        If he was charged with robbery, then he must not have been able to show a receipt. If he had the receipt on him (like some commenters have claimed), he would have just showed the manager the receipt, the manager would apologize and then everybody goes on their merry way.

        If you set off the alarm on your way out of a store, they don’t immediately drag you to jail. They ask to see your receipt.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Apparently in this case, they immediately tackle you and choke you in to submission, THEN check for your receipt.

        • grapedog says:

          unless perhaps you are deaf, and you cannot hear the store alarms going off and you keep walking, then store security gets a hard on and tackles you in the middle of the sidewalk, WAY THE FUCK OUTSIDE THEIR PERVUE…

    • DanRydell says:

      Yeah, if there was probably cause for arrest then I don’t have an issue with the guy being restrained against his will. Apparently a lot of people would be willing to let someone steel from them and not try to physically stop the person from doing it.

      • jeff_the_snake says:

        if you walked in my bedroom and stole a couple shirts i promise i’d stop choking you when you tapped out. that wasn’t a reasonable amount of force even if they were caught red handed.

      • user765 says:

        There are many ways to restrain people without chocking them. Although, I don’t know if anyone can restrain the Steelers.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Absolutely I would be making the same stink. This isn’t about the handicap (but it does enhance how terrible it was for him to do this) it’s about one man committing an illegal act against another. There is a reason that illegal acts involving money or merchandise are considered less severe than illegal acts against another person.

      Shoplifting gets you a fine. Assault gets you jail time.

      • Clyde Barrow says:

        Isn’t the handicapp a protected class? I would think that this guy being handicapped alone guarantee’s a financial windfall. Of course assault/battery helps too. I say assault because technically to assault someone, the other person has to be aware of it coming but for battery no awareness is needed. The guard more than likely tried to tell this deaf person to do something however with this guy being deaf, it is highly unlikely that he understood what what happening or about to happen. Does that mean then that assault did not happen? Maybe in the case of a deaf person it would not matter because “he’s deaf”.

    • tonberryqueen says:

      As someone who worked in a record store and felt like personally ramming people in the crotch every time they stole from me, I’ve personally fantasized about doing this sort of thing. Doesn’t mean it’s right. If the shoplifter had stabbed someone on the way out, then, sure, be a hero, if you aren’t worried about your own safety.

      It’s not safe, nor is it legal, to physically restrain a shoplifter.

      Even just catching and verbally calling out a shoplifter can be dicey. Some of them are crazy or on powerful drugs. I was threatened with needles by a heroin junkie. I caught a shoplifter using a razorblade trying to open a package while I was in the middle of training a new hire on how to spot red flags for shoplifting, but chewed him out, snatched the product from his hand, and marched him out of the store like a scolded child after he tried to hide the razor. It wasn’t smart, even though I was sure he wouldn’t use the blade on me if he was pocketing it; I was just really, really angry and wasn’t thinking about my safety.

      The best you can usually do if they run is hold open the door and scream after them about what a pathetic loser they are.

    • craptastico says:

      i’ll take you one step further. how often do posters here applaud when an old guy that chases a burgler out of his store with a bat or something like that? when people sympathize with the shop owner everyone says it’s great, when they sympathize with the thief, any amount of force is excessive.

      • Genocidicbunny says:

        By now I cant tell if you’re trolling or just plain stupid.

      • ARVash says:

        We should have flamethrowers legalized against thieves, GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. A shopkeeper is not allowed to chase customers with a bat, that’s not legal. If you feel they are shoplifting, you call the police.

        Let the cops do their job. You want to catch people who do crimes, become a cop.

  9. sanjaysrik says:

    Yayyy, they’re “taking the matter very seriously” and “looking into it”

    or some other mumbo jumbo corporate speak for ‘please, go away’

  10. IphtashuFitz says:

    I’m glad they’re taking it seriously…

    Unfortunately my keyboard can’t relay the level of sarcasm I’m feeling as I type that.

    • Kavatar says:

      Honestly, what else could you expect them to say? “We fired the guy immediately without attempting to find out exactly what happened”?

      • Twonkey says:

        I don’t think there’s much to investigate, unless of course Forever 21 believes that it’s alright for its employees to use excessive force.

        • ARVash says:

          Exactly, what he did was completely inappropriate no matter what the customer did prior, save for firing a gun in the store at the employees, seeing as the manager of the store felt comfortable standing 5 feet in front of the assailed; this strikes me as the unlikely situation.

  11. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    I’m incredibly saddened nobody took action against those guards.

    I would have first asked the large one protecting the haneous act if either of them were law officers. Once he had said know, I would have immediately attacked the large one and then tackled the other one. Don’t care if I’d had gone to jail, which i likely would have, but I wouldn’t have sat by while someone potentially died over supposed shoplifting.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Whoops, please pardom my homophone use of “know.”

    • craptastico says:

      it’s easy to be a tough guy on the internet. it’s another in the real world. if someone jumps in and gets thrown in jail, what are they supposed to do to feed their family now that they’ve lost their job due to a felony arrest, and time spent in jail?

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        In this case, I am not being the internet tough guy. I’m not a violent person, I’m generally a pishover, but I do not tolerate victimizing other people, nor endangering lives. This person’s life, guilty or not, was in danger.

        Luckily for me, I don’t have kids and have enough in savings to pay the mortgage a few times.

    • Verdant Pine Trees says:

      Even saying loudly, “SIR! THEY ARE DEAF! THEY CANNOT HEAR. PLEASE DON’T HURT THEM.”

  12. MamaBug says:

    blah blah blah. I was on the F21′s FB site and most people were still defending them and like “OMGBBQ I LUUUUV UR CLOTHEZZZ!!!1!!!one!”

    gah.

    • chefboyardee says:

      that’s because anyone pathetic enough to shop at a store called “forever 21″ is also pathetic enough not to understand common human decency.

      • MamaBug says:

        shit, I shop there because it’s cheap and they fit. Not anymore, though. Don’t troll because some people like to shop at certain stores. However, i agree on the moral decency.

      • craptastico says:

        are they as pathetic as someone who judges people based on where they shop?

  13. penuspenuspenus says:

    The man’s brother should have soccer kicked the security guard in the face. That was beyond excessive force, that was a potentially lethal choke.

  14. BadgerPudding says:

    Holy Cow, this is an overtly Christian company that prints bible verses on its shopping bags?

    What a despicably poor response. Take this matter seriously by publicly stating that this guard has been fired and that the same fate awaits any other employee that lays a hand on anyone during their shift.

    • leftturnonred says:

      Well, Jesus always said to choke out the meek and the deaf if you think they stole your pants, right?

    • BDSanta2001 says:

      Anyone else see that documentary “Made in LA” about Forever 21 sweatshops in California? Forever 21 was even sued in 2001, but the case was dropped when they paid up “backwages” to the laborers.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_21#Controversy

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Overreaction, much? This happened four days ago. It takes a lot longer to examine the evidence and not make kneejerk reactions. I believe the the guard will lose his job, but it does have to get his side of the story, investigate his actions, and if the company fires him without doing any of that, he could very well sue the company for wrongful termination because it never bothered to investigate.

      And it’s only the owners who are Christian, and they aren’t responsible for what one guard does, especially if the guard was employed by a contracting company. I really don’t think it’s overt, either. It’s not like the stores have church pamphlets. The only verse printed is John 3:16 and it’s on the bottom of the bag. Apparently In-and-Out burger cups also have John 3:16.

  15. WorksatDollarRentaCar says:

    What if the Deaf guy was the one to actually initiate the violence? But we just don’t see it since it started before the video started.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      I would point out that while being choked, the deaf man is not being violent in any way. He’s only tapping the man, which is the only way he can communicate in that position.

      If he had been violent prior to the chokehold, I’d imagine he’s be a bit more violent than a tap on the shoulder while being choked.

      But you are right, we can only make conclusions based on the evidence given to us.

    • craptastico says:

      stop thinking. don’t you know it’s immoral to apprehend criminals?

  16. pantheonoutcast says:

    Charged with alleged robbery =/= chokehold to the point of near death.

    Prior criminal record = ? Hello gray area.

    Was the prior criminal record based on failure to pay child support? Arrest for an outstanding traffic warrant? Tax evasion?

    Or was it shoplifting? If he was charged with robbery this time, and his previous conviction was for robbery, then the entire context of the case would change for me right there.

    • hypnotik_jello says:

      In what way would the context change? In that he stole before so it’s justifiable behavior that he was choked to death? This isn’t the middle ages, we have a system of justice and punishment (which is supposed to be) appropriate to the crime. He could have shoplifted a hundred times before. Doesn’t mean that he should arbitrarily found guilty based on his prior actions.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        I didn’t say that he should arbitrarily be found guilty. I’m saying that he is less innocent than previously assumed to be. Therefore, my level of sympathy for the man has dropped. My level of outrage for the security guard’s actions have not, however. It is possible to feel two ways about the same incident – it’s called being a complex human being.

        If he stole 100 times before, and on the 101st time he gets choked to death by an overzealous security guard two things are true in my mind:

        1) The security guard is liable for the man’s death, and should pay the consequences.
        2) The shoplifter got what was coming to him.

        Sorry, but that’s just the truth. Justice meted out by the Universe is just as valid as justice by the State.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Justice dished out by the universe is random and in no way fair – evidenced by child cancer victims and billions of other injustices in this world.

          Justice of the rule of law, while also flawed, is far superior to that of the universe.

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            Oh sure, the random chaos of the universe is rarely fair. But when it causes suffering to a person deserving of such suffering, it’s pretty freakin’ great. Like when Bernie Madoff got the snot kicked out of him in prison? That’s a beautiful thing.

            Sometimes the justice dished out by the legal system is unfair and wrong, too. There are people out there, walking around free, that are responsible for for the deaths of other humans because they refused to call a cab from the bar. Hell, there are people who have received multiple DUI arrests, and yet, there they are, free and unimpeded by a weak judicial system. If a guy with three DUI’s to his name gets hit by a bus, what – we should feel sympathy for him?

            We can’t depend on the universe for justice, but we can sure as hell say, “good” when it is served.

            • smo0 says:

              It’s all about numbers.
              Add on the fact that the guy was deaf… what if he wasn’t… what would our OVERALL reaction to the story be?
              First, the security guard was absolutely in the wrong… I’m going to be clear about that…

              And

              I agree with you.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      These type of people are confound me.

      I can never figure out what context they think the world exists where signs are posted on all people that have committed crimes, so that we know when someone is guilty of prior offenses so that we can change our system of rules and laws and socially acceptable behavior based on their prior offenses.
      And, how every citizen is, in fact, 12 people who have the authority to judge the person without given any evidence or witness testimony.

    • craptastico says:

      regardless of what he did previously, i’m assuming they saw him shoplift, otherwise i doubt they’d have detained him. since he was arrested, my assumption is probably correct. therefore he deserves to be detained, and punished by the law.

  17. vastrightwing says:

    Here’s my imaginary statement from Forever 21,

    “Hey like really, we take this so seriously, like we can’t believe this happened at one of our stores! Starting today, we’ve put the cop on double probation, stripped him of like his iPhone and walkie talkie. He’ll be writing why he shouldn’t like be tackling shoppers again a hundred times. Then, we’re going to like have go to all of our other stores and like train the security cops how to handle this in the future. Like we’re going to give the victim a gift card* good at all of our Forever 21 stores. Plus an iTunes gift card and as a bonus, Helen Keller’s latest novel, yea that’s the ticket.”

    *expires in 60 days, has weekly inactivity fees $9.99 and $2.99 transaction fee for each use. Good only for selected items, you know the drill.

  18. attackgypsy says:

    That’s no choke hold. Holding him THAT long in a choke hold and the guy would have been unconscious. He was obviously trying to control him, and the guy kept fighting.

    Although the head hold should have been abandoned as it obviously wasn’t working, and he should have gone to some kind of joint lock. That’s poor training right there.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      You’re right. If someone thinks they can apply a proper headlock, while not knowing the physical condition of the victim, without killing them, I should just trust their judgment.

  19. idx says:

    How do we know what happened up to the point that the video starts? If the deaf guy took a swing at the security guard then I think the tackle and choke may be justified.

    If it was just shop lifting, then that guard needs a little jail time.

  20. COBBCITY says:

    “”We are troubled by the video and do not condone the use of excessive physical force by our employees. We are investigating this matter and will take action once we have the full story.”

    That is BS from their lawyers and PR department to try and protect themselves.

  21. SkokieGuy says:

    Why is Forever 21 investigating? The police should have charged the security guard with a crime and the police should be conducting the investigation.

    Sorry to bring up the analogy, but kind of like the church “investigating” claims of abuse to decide IF they involve the police.

    This is a police matter, not a corporate issue to investigate.

    • shangyle says:

      They are investigating to determine what disciplinary action to take against the employee, not that they have much choice but to fire him.

      I agree about the police. They charged the deaf man for robbery and assault, but did nothing to the guard?? Unfortunately with this much time passed I’m doubtful the guard will be charged. Disgusting. I hope there is so much public outrage that police/DA get sanctioned for not doing their jobs.

      • oldwiz65 says:

        Maybe the police/DA aren’t charging the guy cause the Forever 21 lawyers slipped them a fat envelope?

  22. nonzenze says:

    Yes, because deaf people should be subject to different rules. Either it was right or wrong, the guy being deaf matters not at all.

    • hypnotik_jello says:

      Except that maybe being DEAF could have something to do with the not HEARING something the security guard was possibly SAYING to him?

      • brinks says:

        I imagine it went something like this:

        The alarm goes off. They deaf guys keep walking. Security shouts at them. They keep walking. They don’t respond, so the guard, flexing his massive rent-a-cop power, tackles one of them for their defiance.

        It has a lot to do with his ability to hear.

  23. outshined says:

    Why does KABC have deaf in quotes as if they’re faking it?

    ‘Deaf’ man arrested after scuffle with guards

  24. Wrathernaut says:

    So what you’re saying, is that deaf people aren’t all perfect pillars of society, and can be dirty thieves just like “normal” people?

    /shock

  25. fantomesq says:

    Its not robbery… theft by force or threat of force? Where is the customer’s use of force? Petty theft, possibly but what the hell warranted that use of force?

  26. al says:

    Well this teaches me a lesson. f I dont want to be put in a choke hold then I shouldn’t steal.

    This guy is not only a current thief he is a prior thief. It makes no difference that he was deaf. We are all equal and should be treated as such. Why should we care how he was taken down? This whole thing about being sensitive to how criminals are treated is crap. They intentionally break the law.

    Do we even know the whole story? Did the guard see the criminal steal and immediately tackle him to the ground? Probably not. If i were to guess id say he was confronted and asked to follow the guard to a back room. The criminal, knowing hes stolen before and will probably get in a lot of trouble, tried to run or even tried to attack the guard.

    Put yourselves in the guards place. He is in danger of getting hurt. Of course he is going to apply a hold that makes him safe. He didnt break the law, why should he suffer.

    I commend the guard for taking action against criminals. Lets see if some other idiot goes in there to steal.

    • MrMan09 says:

      “If i were to guess id say he was confronted and asked to follow the guard to a back room.”

      How do you ask a deaf person anything if you don’t know sign?

      And if you were to read the report from the eyewitness, the alarm went off and then the guard tackled the man for not turning around when the alarm was blaring. You know… SOUND that pesky thing deaf people can not hear…

      And he has prior “charges” but they refuse to say shoplifting or not. Reading, its not just for other people.

      The guard put himself in danger when he got annoyed that this customer did not respond to the audio alarm or anything he said, and then he tackled the man… you know the MAN WHO CAN’T HEAR HIM.

      And considering they are already trying to say they were shoplifting and had them on tape, and he was high on meth, and making up a bunch of other claims… they pretty much know how badly they screwed this up and are trying to cover it up. Or did you miss where they try to use other security to intimidate people filming this travesty, and then had them stand to make sure the view was blocked.

      The other man who faces no charges, he had his packages taken from him and kept from him by the other security guard. So its ok to steal from him because he MAYBE had done something bad. Oh wait not arrested no charges, he must not have done anything. But a security badge gives them the right to steal his property.

      I can only hope at some point you end up facing someone just as stupid as your pretending to be.

  27. the_bursar says:

    “excessive physical force”? How about any physical force.

  28. no_wallmart says:

    Hey Forever 21: I will Forever Not Go to Your Stores.

  29. jcota says:

    Isn’t Forever 21 a woman’s clothing store. What the fuck were they shoplifting there? A blouse or a dress.

  30. DanKelley98 says:

    ….and if the victim used force to protect themselves, they’d be screwed…and likely in jail.

  31. Groanan says:

    Here is another example of how corrupt the system is.

    Why didn’t the DA, who must have seen this video by now, have charges pressed against the security guard who is clearly using more force than is authorized? The police are not allowed to choke people out, security guards are likely given less authority to do so.

    They are basically putting out the message that the accused have no rights, especially from the hired muscle of private companies.

    Taser grandma, choke out the deaf guy, the American public will find some way to blame the victim so they can continue shopping.

  32. ARVash says:

    That’ll learn a deaf man to listen when he’s shouted at.

    I want a written statement that the man in the video is going to be canned, and that they’re going to reform their employment training, then I want substantial proof that their training regiment has been changed. Otherwise it’s all just saving face. I’d also think that the deaf man would be offered a settlement long before any lawsuit takes place.

    It’s okay though, they’re “investigating”.

  33. MrMan09 says:

    Brother speaks out on deaf theft incident
    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7609472

    “According to the L.A. District Attorney’s Office, Alejandro Rea has a history of petty theft. He pleaded guilty in a case back in 2002 and no contest for another incident in 2008. In the current case he is being charged with one count of 2nd-degree robbery and one count of petty theft with priors. “

    Its cute how this information release is “important” to try to establish that he is a hardened career criminal.

    “Our internal investigation has shown conclusively that the security guard approached and identified himself to the suspect after the light and sound anti-theft alarms were triggered. The suspect visually acknowledged the guard and then turned and fled the scene”

    Now there are lights attached to the alarm, but they still would have been unnoticeable if you weren’t looking at them as you exited the store. The alarm is primarily audio.

    “The suspect looked at the large black man who, while not in a uniform, tried to grab him and then turned and ran fearing for his safety” There I fixed that for you.
    I’d love to know how he “identified himself”, I am guessing we will see that video at the trial.
    Did he have a little badge or did he just assume if he spoke slower and louder they would understand him better?

    Was he a shoplifter, we do not know.
    What most of us can agree on is that what was done to this man is unacceptable.
    It is the word of the people who physically assaulted the suspect vs the suspect at this point.
    The store staff took the property of both men, and made efforts to hide what they did while going through it. I wonder how hard it is to take a piece of paper and jam it in your pocket when you know your job is on the line if they find it.
    His brother who faces no charges, had his property seized by store staff and claims he had receipts.
    Meanwhile they pile on accusations trying to discredit someone who might have been in the wrong, but they did so much worse to him and are looking for excuses to make what they did the right thing.

    Shoplifter or not, this is unacceptable behavior.
    But when you get caught running sweatshops and can just backpay your way out of that before the trial happens, I guess that is just how you stay classy Forever21.

  34. mcgyver210 says:

    The Guard & the other guy in a suit both deserve nothing less than an even Worse Choke Hold like they did & helped with. Maybe the abuse from store personnel will stop when they try it on the wrong person & get themselves hurt or worse.

    I am not legally aloud to protect my property from theft with any force but retailers are assaulting & sometimes killing people everyday over receipt checks & buzzers.

    Sorry security guards you are not aloud to get to close to me or my family due to your violent nature & if you do I wont just lay down but I wont attack you first either. There are just to many fact based accounts of retailers attacking innocent customers so it is time for customers to take a defensive stand.

  35. classic10 says:

    I once gave 10 dollars to a homeless.
    After a few minutes he came back saying: “Hey man, you must be mistaken. You gave me TEN dollars.”

  36. oldwiz65 says:

    Forever 21 puts bible verses on their shopping bags? I’m only surprised they didn’t tase the alleged shoplifter. The security guard should have been arrested on aggravated criminal assault, but will almost certainly get away with it or get a promotion due to Forever 21′s lawyers piously stating he was protecting their property from evil sinners.

    Remind me not to walk near the entrances of a Forever 21 store – I might trigger the alarm and be jumped and choked by a crazed security guard.

    I seriously doubt that Forever 21 will take any action against the security guard; if they do so then they will be admitting that their employee committed criminal assault which would leave them open to a whopping lawsuit which they would lose. I’m sure the alleged shoplifter has already been contacted by seveal lawyers eager to sue the store for a few million. No store is going to do anything that would leave them open to a lawsuit.

    For crying out loud, in what states does a security guard have the authority to perform this kind of criminal assault? I wouldn’t think California was that barbaric. Of course after Rodney King who knows.

    • MrMan09 says:

      “We recognize that the security guard used excessive force, which is against our store policy and have suspended him indefinitely”

      Because if we fire him then we lay ourselves open to even more money in the lawsuit.
      And then he will sue us for not backing up what our staff told him to do.
      Because its funny how this is against store policy, but an employee is right there and not telling him to stop.

  37. Thorzdad says:

    “Officials said the man charged had a prior record, but did not elaborate.”

    Translation: “Speeding tickets. But we’ll ‘find’ something. Just give us a few days.”

  38. FeelinFroggy says:

    Deaf or not…he was stealing right? So maybe he didn’t deserve a head lock or choke hold but you feel sorry for him? Oh please!
    If this was in your house and your stuff…. You still feel sorry? Is it excessive force? Get a grip people…

    • MrMan09 says:

      Really when was he convicted?
      Being charged with a crime does not mean your guilty.
      Or are you one of those people they should throw of juries because “well they have him here, he must be guilty.”

      Putting out statements that are designed to make the public think less of the victim of the actual crime, thats cool.
      Having a law designed to punish shoplifters more than oh say an organization that protects known active pedophiles in its group… thats cool.

      Comparing someone stealing from a store with breaking into your house. Thats a nice jump.
      Did you wave at the shark on the way over?
      And they did get a grip, around his neck in a fashion that could have resulted in his death… but he MIGHT have stolen something for Forever 21 get the angry mob and pitchforks!

      • FeelinFroggy says:

        I’m not jumping from shoplifting to breaking into a house. I’m using the house comparison to show the overreaction to the manner in which he was apprehended. He is being subdued in a manner which is safe for the security guard.
        If you had to do the same with someone breaking into your house(aka you being the security guard), would you ask the guy to have a seat and offer him some tea until the cops arrive??

        If you seriously think that a jury is needed to determine a shoplifters guilt then you clearly have no clue what it means to be caught shoplifting.
        Unfortunately, I have been in the business and know exactly what it is like and I can assure you that nobody gets stopped or apprehended until said “suspect” actually conceals merchandise at which point heshe becomes a “shoplifter”.
        It’s pretty cut and dry really, your either shopping or stealing.

        • MrMan09 says:

          The interesting part is what they claim to have seen in the video.
          There is no mention of having him on video taking anything.
          In fact the statement for Forever 21 says the alarm went off, and that is the only time security went towards him.

          “Our internal investigation has shown conclusively that the security guard approached and identified himself to the suspect after the light and sound anti-theft alarms were triggered. The suspect visually acknowledged the guard and then turned and fled the scene. According to media reports, the suspect was arrested and charged with robbery and shoplifting by the LAPD. We recognize that the security guard used excessive force, which is against our store policy and have suspended him indefinitely,”

          So this is not a case where being in the business helps, this is the audio alarm sounded and a large man then approaches the deaf shoppers. He “identifies” himself – something that is debatable as to how it was done – and then proceeds to tackle and choke the “suspect” who does not respond how they want. I’m sorry if I large man is walking quickly towards me with his hands out and looking angry, I’m not going to try to figure out if he wants to brush a bee off my shoulder or wants to give me a hug, I’m going to move away from him. If I can’t hear if he is saying ooh hold still a bee on your shoulder or I’m going to beat you, is a situation people can’t seem to understand.

          I’m not a shoplifter, but I’ve set off those damn alarms a buncha times, because some register worker did not do their job. I’ve had my bags inspected and receipt checked because they don’t bother to train how to make sure a tag is deactivated. So the fact the alarm went off is not proof of shoplifting. Because I can hear the stupid alarm, I stop and wait for a bored security guard to figure out which item and record it in his dumb little log. If I can’t hear the alarm I might very well keep walking, getting my keys out or tucking change away not paying much attention to whats in front of me.

          Merchandise from Forever 21 was “found in his bag”.
          Its merchandise, never “the stolen goods”.

          The careful mention of there being a light attached to the alarms, a light that if your not looking at you will not see. But it helps establish the story “he knew what was happening”.

          They took his brothers items. Everyone wants to over look this, but someone not accused had his property taken and withheld by rent a cops. They went through his property when he was accused of nothing.

          Media reports say he was arrested… Media reports? Isn’t Forever 21 the injured party who would be pressing those charges? Their worker, their property, and they rely on “media reports”.

          The fun thing I hope for is the brothers used a debit or credit card for their purchases, that show an amount that cover all of the “recovered merchandise” plus what the other brother had. That maybe it was an item they purchased, picked up of the counter before being deactivated and this went south because the guard went nuclear when the shopper “ignored” his verbal commands. The Forever 21 staff makes a point of blocking the people filming from the outside as they go through the packages and papers, if its not “accidentally lost” I’d like them to turn all of the internal video over to the police, so they can make sure an employee didn’t come across a receipt that cast them in a bad light and pocket it quickly.

          Because he was “charged” does not mean anything to me. I’ve seen reports of people arrested for “contempt of cop” for breaking imaginary rules. I’ve seen people charged with laws meant to stop people recording calls, because an off duty cop in plain clothes pulled his gun and charged someone on the street waving the gun before identifying himself. The officer looks bad, so the department finds what might stick to intimidate the person.

          And if someone breaks into my house, my first response is to call 911.
          My second step is to rack the shotgun and command them down on the ground, not to try to surprise tackle them and choke them out.

          He MIGHT be a shoplifter, but how this situation played out is unacceptable.
          This could just be one of those fun cases of a mistake spun way out of control, take 2 deaf shoppers, sprinkle in an overzealous security guard, add refusal to follow verbal orders, put on video and press all the charges you can to protect the business. Because governmental officials have never sided with a company who is in the wrong… He apologized to BP. (nuff said).

  39. MPHinPgh says:

    Predictable. Was anyone expecting anything different?

  40. kross10c says:

    out of fear of being put in a choke hold I will forever never shop at forever 21!