This story is both heartbreaking and infuriating.
21-year-old Jonathan Hart was shot in the back of the neck after a security guard thought he stole a $2.99 water flavoring product from a Los Angeles Walgreens store earlier this month. Now, Hart’s family is suing the company for $525 million.
The murder happened at the Walgreens on Sunset and Vine in Hollywood on December 2 around 8 PM. Hart’s family believes the store’s security guard, who has not been named, targeted their son because he was a gay black man.
According to their lawyer, civil rights attorney Carl Douglas, Hart was in the store with another black man looking at the water flavoring product. The security approached them and an argument ensued.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“The guard feels the man push him one time,” Douglas recounted during a press conference this week. “The guard pushes the man back one time. The guard watches as the man turns to run toward the back door.”
“The guard raises his gun and points at the man. The guard says, ‘Freeze,’ as the man travels toward the door. The guard fires one shot, striking the man in the back of the neck. The guard watches as the man crumbles to the ground.”
Civil rights attorney Carl Douglas holds press conference in #LosAngeles for Jonathan Hart or Sky Young #justice4sky https://t.co/AgPtO2mdK0
— Carl E. Douglas (@CEDEsq) December 11, 2018
Hart, who was unarmed, later died at a nearby hospital, where it was determined that the only thing in his possession at the time of his death was his California ID card.
The $2.99 water flavoring product was never stolen.
“Jonathan was not shoplifting,” Douglas insisted. “Let me repeat that. Jonathan was not shoplifting when he was shot. That’s the propaganda Walgreens wants you to report.”
The company issued a statement offering its “deepest and most sincere condolences” to Hart’s family, and saying “we immediately terminated the security company” that employed Hart’s murderer.
It also said it contracts armed security guards “in our stores based on the public safety needs of each location”, though Douglas noted only four Walgreens locations in the entire L.A. area keep armed guards.
“Each of these stores are in the black, brown and homeless and LGBT communities,” he said, “and we want to know why.”
He added: “I dare say, Jonathan Hart was profiled because he was homeless. He was harassed because he was gay. And he was shot because he was black.”
Vince
I don’t see how Walgreens is responsible. They terminated the contract with the security company. Go after the guard and the security company. Of course Walgreens has the big bucks so I get it.
Also notice the family is all of a sudden concerned about their gay homeless son. Yeah all that potential money.
Amalgamate
you’re an idiot-no offense, but Walgreens is actually 100% responsible for hiring a contracted security guard who murdered a man in their store.
Chrisk
I feel bad for the guy. He didn’t deserve to get shot. Seems like the jackals are out to make money now.
Scout
I agree with you. Walgreen’s must rely on the reputation of the security company’s hiring and training of their guards. They have no say in who the company sends as their guard unless they know he’s had prior infractions. The family should absolutely be going after the security company that hired him.
Juanjo
Sorry kids, the law is pretty clear on the issue. If you hire someone or contract with someone to act as your agent or representative, you are responsible for their actions while they are working for you.
Juanjo
As to the amount of the lawsuit, that looks to me to be a decision by the attorney filing the lawsuit to develop some media push in the case. Walgreens, like many companies, gets sued regularly over the actions of its employees. They have teams of attorneys who descend and make life miserable for the plaintiff by burying the plaintiff in discovery procedures and various motions designed to get the plaintiff to give up and walk away. By getting the facts out in public like this, it makes Walgreens a little more willing to just settle and not engage in slash and burn litigation. No company wants their name up in lights for shooting people in the back when the person did nothing wrong. The case will settle for much less.
The deceased was on the streets and homeless. If I were the attorney representing Walgreens I would be looking for his arrest record, his medical records to see if he was a drug addict, what his work history was, and what his relationship was with his family. The fact is the case is worth a few bucks but not that much.
isa
in tort law, you are responsible for conducting your business responsibly: they hired untrained gurds – it does not take much training to know shooting someone on the mere suspicion of shoplifting – not a felony in this case at under $3 – is a felony murder, at least manslaughter.
walgreens is the responsible party since they own manage and have total control over whom they hire and employ.
scottk6561
I live in Minnesota and security guards can’t carry guns. We are the only state in the union where Capitol Security are not allowed to carry guns. Now for 525 million that is ludicrous. Nobody’s life is worth that much. There is only a financial gain for a family who left their son homeless. Hmmm
Jboo
@Juanjo. Lol – you need to brush up on your law there my friend. Vicarious liability generally doesn’t apply to independent contractors, which the security company most likely was. Checkout Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm (Section 57).
The decedent’s arrest record and medical history are inadmissible evidence. You cannot, under the Federal Rules of Evidence (and most states either directly adopt these rules or emulate them quite closely) introduce evidence of prior crimes or bad act to establish that a person acted in accordance with those traits on the occasion in question (exceptions obviously exist, largely for crimes or past acts involving fraud or dishonesty). Eg., You can’t introduce prior arrests for shoplifting to prove the man was shoplifting on the day he was shot. You’d need to prove something else like motive, opportunity, identity, etc.
The decedent was homeless and unemployed, if I am assuming/reading things correctly, meaning pecuniary costs are likely non-existent, so the family has to go after things like damages for mental anguish, loss of consortium, things like that. But if he was homeless and estranged from his family, they’re not likely to get much, if anything. This wrongful death action seems largely predatory, although who knows – there might be facts warranting it. But I think we can all agree they’re only going after Walgreens because the corporation has more money than the security company.
Vince
I’ve been to that Walgreens. Anybody who lives in that area knows that the homeless problem is huge. Some are very nice but there’s also many that are violent and mentally ill.
Amalgamate
irrelevant in regards to this story
Juanjo
That does not give Walgreens the right to shoot someone dead for stealing.
Chrisk
Walgreens did not shoot the guy. Walgreens contracted a security company who hired the guy. Stop the hyperbole.
CarrieV
How does that even come close to excusing the shooting of an UNARMED person who chose to de-escalate the confrontation by leaving?
Even putting aside the fact that he wasn’t actually stealing the Mio, would pocketing a THREE DOLLAR ITEM have been worth his slaughter? That MF’er took a HEAD SHOT at someone who — at worst — was lifting a $3 item with a probable wholesale cost of a dollar.
isa
he didn’t do anything. you don’t kill people who didn’t do anything. he was leaving, shot from behind
isa
@Chrisk
yep, walgreens hired somebody and they are responsible for whomever they hire. it was walgreens store. nobody else but walgreens is responsible. their decision to hire incompetants and put untrained guards in their stores with guns. they’re guilty of muder
scottk6561
The homeless problem is huge across the country. Thanks to our wonderful economy and poor healthcare system. I am not referencing Obamacare but health care in general in the United States where mental health care is covered very little unless committed to a psych ward.
Vince
Lastly I’ve never seen a white guard there. Therefore them making this into some kind of racial argument you just know is pure BS.
Amalgamate
your idiocy really knows no bounds, dude-you’ve never seen a white guard? ummmm…are you there 24/7?
Juanjo
Really? That is the argument you are going with? The issue here is not employment discrimination. It does not matter what color the employee is but rather the fact the person shot someone he thought was shoplifting.
Chrisk
@Juanjo. It’s not Vince’s point. It’s the argument of the guys attorneys that they shot him because he was black.
CarrieV
Look, this is how security guards (and cops, law enforcement in general) are trained: Blacks bad, Browns bad, gays bad, shoot on site, no one will care because those lives don’t matter, despite the occasional t-shirt to the contrary.
Even Black police are told to target minorities, just like the white and Hispanic cops are told to target minorities. Think a lot of middle-aged, well-to-do white wimminz get the stop ‘n frisk?
Juanjo
Chris – I know what his point it and it is the one on the top of his head. He is pointing to the possible race of the security guard as an issue. That is not the issue here. The issue is the fact the man was shot in back by a security guard in the employ of Walgreens. The issue of Walgreens hiring a security guard of one color or another is irrelevant to the lawsuit.
Vince
#CarrieV. Not saying what the security guard was right but he did escalate the situation by fighting with him. That’s not a black,white or brown issue. That’s basically you just pissed off the wrong person and he shot you for it.
isa
the company hired guards: it’s not about the color of the guard but the training of the guard and the store policy.
racism is how you conduct your business, not the color of the guard you use to conduct your business
that guard was trained by somebody. and walgreens hired armed guards to take care of racially and gender defined suspicious customers – the policy of walgreens is the issue
Vince
@Jaunto.
“Jonathan Hart was was shot because he was black”
Maybe you should go back and read the article again. This is directly from the family attorney
bowlingbutch
His death is sad and sad too is the family suing for so much money for their HOMELESS relative. Where was the family while this young man was living on the streets? Now that he is dead they want to make a buck off him. That is sad. Show compassion and love to your relative who is homeless.
spacecadet
It’s too easy to make assumptions when a homeless person is involved and lay blame with the family. I will cite personal example:
I have an adult older brother who is homeless. From the time he was an adolescent he was having emotional issues, was anti-social, anti-authoritarian, and had to be put in regular counseling and special needs schools. He couldn’t hold down regular employment for even easy menial jobs because he would get into fights with co-workers and supervisors. Post-school he did not have the means to support himself. For several years my parents still housed him but he would be physically and verbally abusive towards them, was disobedient, and would damage their house. Then they tried having him in apartments that they paid for, not to mention paying for his food, computers and electronic equipment, bicycles, and so on. He would always get evicted from these apartments for damaging them, harassing neighbors, and police would have to come on multiple occasions to arrest him. This damaged my father’s credit as he co-signed the leases for these apartments. Finally my parents had enough – they are retired, elderly, and my brother has been on-going financial drain, one who has shown no improvement in even attempting to get a job, nor has ever shown any gratitude towards my parents for all they’ve done for him. Enough is enough and now he is out on the streets. They still send him money though but it is emotional anguish for them to have their child turn out this way and be in this situation. It doesn’t mean a family loves their family member any less just because they happen to be homeless.
Therefore, don’t be too quick to judge this family when you don’t know the circumstances and they probably love their son very much. You can’t put a price on that and yes, the lawsuit is for a lot of money (which if they won would probably be substantially reduced anyway or settled for less) but they will never have their son back.
isa
@bowlingbutch no one here has a clue why that man, an adult, was homeless, nor what their family circumstances were
we do know walgreens hired someone who decided to shoot him for no reason
tort law is how citizens enforce justice civilly – that’s the whole purpose of tort law. everybody has the right to demand justice – that’s been the way civil law has functioned for at least a thousand years – a fundamental right and duty of citizenship
Pete le meat
Walgreens is a disgrace. If it employed this security guard then it should take responsibility for his actions.
No shopping at Walgreens for me.
>>> www.g-letshave.fun <<<
You are absolutely right. But i am here to recommend you one brilliant place to find what you exactly need and (i hope) looking for. It is for gay singles only. Just check my name. There are a lot of real gay sugar “daddies” and frivolous gay singles looking for love and pleasure
andrewl
The fact that you can be SHOT for shoplifting is appalling and the mark of a country that collectively insane. Even if the poor victim had stolen $100000 worth of goods the crime does not warrant being shot. The security guard should be up on murder charges, the security firm CEO should also be up on charges and the company closed down. Walgreens should also be at least heavily fined for this. This is not 19th century England when you could get hung for stealing. All security guards must be trained in appropriate use of force. Of course this will not happen in the USA because such a huge proportion of the population are trigger happy gun owners that have been brainwashed into thinking danger is everywhere.
gymmuscleboy
I agree, the security guard should be up on murder charges – and he might be – yet the article does not even touch on his liability. Perhaps it was omitted because it does not play into the racism narrative that engages the readership.
DennisBTR
Let’s start with this – $ 525 Million is absurd and to me (and probably most reasonable people). It makes the lawsuit look suspect and not creditable. Or put more subsequently, it’s a huge overreach.
That being said, here is my prediction of what will happen — Walgreens’ contract with the security company probably has a hold harmless clause for acts of negligence by the security company’s employees. The security company probably has a lot of liability insurance. If not, Walgreens most likely has a big insurance policy to cover these type things. The suit will be settled out of court with a non-disclosure agreement. An insurance company will pay the brunt of the settlement. Walgreens will continue having security guards in stores that they consider high risk for shoplifting or other criminal or civil disturbances.
Should the man have been shot – absolutely not. The man did run to the back door and did not stoop when told to. Even so, he should not have been shot. Was he shot because he was black? Gay? Homeless? Based on the article there is no way to know, so all the accusations, hyperbole, and jumping to conclusions simply distract from the issue of why it happened and how to stop this from happening again.
DennisBTR
Sorry about the auto correct errors.
isa
tort law is a major part of maintaining order in society – walgreen’s negligence cannot be signed way by some third party contract.
the purpose of tort law is to redress grievences- it’s not just to recompense the loss but also to deter and prevent bad behavior. “damages” get multiplied if the the complainant can show the defendent acted in disregard and contempt
the usa leads the world in nonjudicial executions of innocent people – civil tort law is designed over a millenium to redress social injustice
the degree of the injustice makes the “damages” all that greater
Bob LaBlah
The rules of engagement using deadly force for police officers AND armed security guards are the same anywhere across the country: you do not fire at a suspect who you do not have a clear shot (a crowd of people are in your line of fire as in the direction the suspect is running in and you do not fire at a fleeing suspect unless they are shooting back at you. There had to have been a security camera that captured the entire incident and if it happened as reported I am surprised that charges have not been brought against the security guard because thats what sounds like what happened. If the guy ran for the door and the door was locked all the guard had to do was hold the suspect at bay (gun point) and have the store call the police. That security guard company should have its pants sued off of them, not Walgreens. Walgreens mistake was taking a chance on that company that it now regrets. Imagine what the next company guards they hire are going to have to go thru with the amount of transients in Los Angeles once word gets out what happened.
spacecadet
Just a sad story. That a young man should die because he was suspected of shoplifting? Simply horrible. Even if he did shoplift that’s obviously not justification for being shot at. Being shot at and killed as one is in retreat is murder. There was a cop convicted for just this same thing in the recent past.
I’ve never seen a security guard in a Walgreens before but as mentioned in this article it sounds like a very rare thing. The plaintiff’s attorney is implying this is a racial thing but of course that just builds up his case more. It could be Walgreens justification for the guards in these specific stores because they are most targeted for shoplifting. The person most culpable in the murder is obviously the security guard and then the security company that hired him. Least culpable is Walgreens but they have the biggest pocketbook. I predict this will be settled privately for far less than what the lawsuit is for.
Franklin
A black man what needless shot by a security gaurd, and gay men on Queerty are trying to minimize the incident. Color me surprised. I’m am a gay man, but I’m a black man first. This is why I have a hard time calling myself a part of the gay “community”. If something like this were to happen to me, I’d have a hard time believing that gay men would have my back. This country has an overwhelming negative view of black people. As far as the dollar amount of the lawsuit, lawyers purposefully set the initial amounts high so that it will push companies to settle, and as far as the lawsuit goes in general, dollars are the only language comapanies seem to understand. I know it won’t bring back their family memeber, but I hope they get something. America can’t keep this policy of shoot first and ask questions later.
Wicked Dickie
Hey @Vince above, so glad that none of your white gay friends that have homes never have to shop at Walgreens and potentially get harassed near Hollywood and Vine. For the other gays of black, white, brown, pink color that were probably kicked out of their homes for being gay, had drug problems brought on by older adults and peers that didn’t look out for them, hopefully they get some help. You Sir are a horrible human being.
isa
yep. i’m not black. however, it’s not just black people who face racist and gender hate – police beat the hell, out of me because my blond hair was shoulder length and i had black friends – philadelphia police on independence mall on mothers day, for example. other times – – there is a lot of gender hate and racist hate in the LGTBQ “community” and I don’t understand it and it’s not just because of police brutality I have CPTSD nightmares in my 70s
the only community I ever felt safe in, in the USa, was Brownsville in Brooklyn in the 1980s. where I lived for 2 years, and nobody noticed whether i was queer or not, muslim or not, – the only place I ever felt that I wasn’t locked in somebody’s box but just me
gymmuscleboy
Why is the liability of the security guard not discussed in the story? He was the one that pulled the trigger. Instead we are only discussing the liability of the grocery store and the security company.
gymmuscleboy
Furthermore, as this is an article about supposed racism, it is interesting that the race of the security guard was not mentioned. If the security guard was white, it would have played into the racism narrative nicely. Perhaps the reason for the omission is because he was also black.
JulienH
“Each of these stores are in the black, brown and homeless and LGBT communities,” he said, “and we want to know why.”
Really? They really want to know why? A correlation between a black/brown neighbourhood and higher levels of crime does not mean that the numbers are racist – it means there is a higher level of crime in the neighbourhood. Period.
This kind of thinking – this kind of push for a conversation that has no bearing on the situation – is a poor attempt at justice.