Talking to a mall ninja

imported post

MisguidedChild,
I was referring to unarmed security, not loss prevention. Mall security doesn't have the authority to detain anyone for anything less thana felony (in which case they can place someone under citizens arrest, just like any of us can). When I said "real crimes" I was referring to violence, not shoplifting. A gun is one of many tools, and not the most appropriate for most situations, but in those situations that it is the most appropriate, few things will make up for having the real deal. I've worked in retail before too, and I imagine that the presence of mall security may in fact reduce a small amount of theft, but I doubt they have as big of an impact as you would think. Loss prevention is a completely different thing, and they definitely do make a difference in theft. But mall securityguards can only write up reports, ask you to sign a trespass notice, and hope that their ridiculous uniforms and tin badges are enough for you to take them mildly seriously. If a mall security guard attempts to arrest me for anything short of a felony, I have every right to resist that arrest with as much force as necessary, and they are in fact committing a felony in trying to forcefully detain me*.

Just like the security guards at my office building, they are a pen and a telephone away from being completely useless. Aside from writing reports and calling the police, they serve no function, IMO.



*I'm not talking about Loss Prevention. They are not the same thing as mall security.



And .45lovinchick, where is it that you worked unarmed security?



EDIT: jeez, I can't spell anything right today!

imported post

expvideo wrote:

but you don't love the edit button. 4 posts in a row is bad form.

I see you don't find it necessary to reply to my comments.

Click to expand...

Well it does get her post count up and garners her more attention. I'm surprised she hasn't posted a photo of her open carry ensemble.

She does seem to possess the typical selective hearing. Or in this case selective reading. Were you expecting more?





Closer to the topic; I feel I should clarify something.

In my above post I was NOT referring to the thousands of legitimate armed and unarmed men and women who work as security officers but who do NOT work in malls or other retail environments.

Those who do in fact offer a level of security to both their employers and the public.

For instance my Grandfather (mother's father) was an armed security guard for a large manufacturing company. But his primary loyalty we to his employer. He was there to protect the company's property.

During my LEO years I came into contact with many security personnel. Some did a thoroughly commendable job and were just as professional as I was. Others did a completely deplorable job and should have been prosecuted (surprise, surprise, some of them actually were).

One of the worst security jobs I can think of is working for an Armored Car company. Man they do not pay those people enough. I have seen a lot of drugstore cowboys in the job but they don't last long. The work is too hard. I have nothing but respect for those guys who have done it for the long term.

The other is College Security. Colleges need real police departments. Some have them but sadly many do not or else they are way understaffed. The really sad cases are where the admonistration has chosen to hire only a few real cops and the remaining force is nothing more than pepper spray packing forward observers. Our students DESERVE real security. If you are not going to allow students to own or carry their own protection then by damn the school admonistration OWES them a secure environment to grow, live and learn in.

So please don'ttake anything I say a a slight on real security personnel. My previous posts were directed specifically at the Mall Ninja types.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

I was outside, trying very hard to make a trash can, and spit a couple of times (no food yet, just saliva) to "relieve pressure" so to speak. He was telling me this just as I made the trash can and retched into it...

Click to expand...

To be honest, I probabaly would have just aimed HIS way! :lol:

imported post

Funny, I totally missed thegun in that picture until I looked the third time......I really need to work on that......:lol:

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Funny, I totally missed thegun in that picture until I looked the third time......I really need to work on that......:lol:

Click to expand...

I can't see anything but dogtags and a magazine...

imported post

So many comments, so little time. I have a lot of rounds to load.

Bear, yes I am misguided and I have a good time at it!. But not about this. I missed the part where mall security, or any security, is there to protect the public. If they have any such duty it is only to help protect the mall from lawsuits.They are there to protect property.

FYI approx 60% of retail losses are internal, about 20% from internal theft.

I know all about the cop wannabes, if I could type faster I could bore you with stories about them. I'm not sure how a thread about Alderwood possibly banning gun carry devolved into a discussion of depressed personalities in uniform.

Video, same thing, the ninjas aren't there to protect you. I personally consider the theft of thousands of dollars a real crime. Especially since some of it comes out of my bonus check. I expect to protect myself wherever I go and I expect them to tell me where the pretzel store is.

Also, how come ninjas can't stop shoplifters? Why does it have to be a felony? I didn't know that.



Alan

imported post

Misguided Child wrote:

So many comments, so little time. I have a lot of rounds to load.

Bear, yes I am misguided and I have a good time at it!. But not about this. I missed the part where mall security, or any security, is there to protect the public. If they have any such duty it is only to help protect the mall from lawsuits.They are there to protect property.

FYI approx 60% of retail losses are internal, about 20% from internal theft.

I know all about the cop wannabes, if I could type faster I could bore you with stories about them. I'm not sure how a thread about Alderwood possibly banning gun carry devolved into a discussion of depressed personalities in uniform.

Video, same thing, the ninjas aren't there to protect you. I personally consider the theft of thousands of dollars a real crime. Especially since some of it comes out of my bonus check. I expect to protect myself wherever I go and I expect them to tell me where the pretzel store is.

Also, how come ninjas can't stop shoplifters? Why does it have to be a felony? I didn't know that.



Alan

Click to expand...

I think he is referring to the RCW that deals with justifiable homicide/use of deadly force.

The use of force, RCW 9a.16.020 says in part that it is justified

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

If I am not mistaken this is what authorizes LP to detain a shoplifter or other person committing a crime aginst person or property.

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

Funny, I totally missed thegun in that picture until I looked the third time......I really need to work on that......:lol:

Click to expand...

I can't see anything but dogtags and a magazine...

Click to expand...

If confronted by a person likeths we MUST (yes we must) ask ourselves one very important question.

WWAMND?

What Would AMall Ninja Do?

I mean this is something we just don't see everyday, (unless we are very blessed) but neverless we must be fully prepared just in case.

So, does this person warrant alarm? And if so why? Shoulda person like this be allowed to dress like this in public? Is this proper attire for A MALL?

I mean, my goodness, what kind of message is this sending to our children?





[suP][/suP]

imported post

BluesBear wrote:

I mean, my goodness, what kind of message is this sending to our children?





[suP][/suP]

Click to expand...

What do you mean. These are probably the first things a kid remembers seeing.

imported post

Misguided Child wrote:

So many comments, so little time. I have a lot of rounds to load.

Bear, yes I am misguided and I have a good time at it!. But not about this. I missed the part where mall security, or any security, is there to protect the public. If they have any such duty it is only to help protect the mall from lawsuits.They are there to protect property.

FYI approx 60% of retail losses are internal, about 20% from internal theft.

I know all about the cop wannabes, if I could type faster I could bore you with stories about them. I'm not sure how a thread about Alderwood possibly banning gun carry devolved into a discussion of depressed personalities in uniform.

Video, same thing, the ninjas aren't there to protect you. I personally consider the theft of thousands of dollars a real crime. Especially since some of it comes out of my bonus check. I expect to protect myself wherever I go and I expect them to tell me where the pretzel store is.

Also, how come ninjas can't stop shoplifters? Why does it have to be a felony? I didn't know that.



Alan

Click to expand...

The reason that mall ninjas can't stop shoplifters is because "citizens arrest", or legallyholding someone against their will, is only lawful if that person has commited a felony. I believe that this is different for Loss Prevention, because as a business owner, you are allowed to detain someone attempting to steal merchandise from your establishment, provided that they haven't already left (don't have this information to quote), but since the mall doesn't own the merchandise, only the store that it came from, the mall security guards do not have the authority that the store's loss prevention officers do.

With the exception of loss prevention, you cannot hold someone against their will unless they have commited a felony. Holding someone against their will is consideredUnlawful Imprisonment, under WA state law, and is a felony.

If a security guard at the mall attempts to hold you against your will, which would include laying a hand on you at all, they would be commiting felony unlawful imprisonment. You would be justified to defend yourself with as much force as necessary, up to and including deadly force. WA state law says that homicide tostop someone from commiting a felony against you, or in your presence, is "justifiable homicide".

Now shooting the mall cop for trying to arrest you is excessive and rediculous. But so is coming on here as a security guard and talking about how badass and hardcore unarmed security guards are, like tank-top girl did. Talking about how unarmed security are trained in serious martial arts and can confront dangerous criminals is, well, retarded.

BTW, I don't expect the mall security to protect me in any way. In fact I don't expect anyone, anywhere, ever, to protect me at all. Just me.

imported post

I believe that the mall stores give authority to mall security to do loss prevention for them when they sign the contract with the mall. This is why mall security actually can detain someone who shoplifts at a mall. I could be wrong but I remember hearing something to that fact one time from an Everett Officer. It is no different than Wackenhutt contracting with a corporate company to do security for them. They do have the right to detain under the circumstances outlined in 9a.16.020

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Misguided Child wrote:

Also, how come ninjas can't stop shoplifters? Why does it have to be a felony? I didn't know that.

Click to expand...

The reason that mall ninjas can't stop shoplifters is because "citizens arrest", or legallyholding someone against their will, is only lawful if that person has commited a felony.

Click to expand...

Wel..... Looks like the WA State AG disagrees.

According to a published AG Opinion...

A citizen may arrest any person whom he observes committing the crime of petit larceny in his presence.

Click to expand...

Since the crime of larceny has been committed, these questions involve the right of a citizen to make an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in his presence.

In connection with the general question, this office, in an opinion dated December 27, 1927, to the director of health (1927-28 AGO 427), stated that:
". . . If a crime is actually being committed in one's presence, a person, whether he be a peace officer or not, has the power to arrest without warrant. . . ."

Later, in an opinion dated July 31, 1928, to the chief of the highway patrol (1927-28 AGO 867), it was said that:
". . . every citizen has the right to arrest any person [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] whom he actually observes in the act of committing a misdemeanor. . . ."

In 4 Am.Jur., Arrest, § 35, it is said that:
"While the authority of a private person to arrest is more limited than that of an officer, in general it may be said that a private person may arrest an offender against criminal laws where the offense is committed in his presence; . . ."

And in § 38:
". . . a private person may arrest for an affray or breach of the peace committed in his presence, and while it is continuing, but not for a misdemeanor on suspicion, regardless of how well it is grounded. . . ."

Click to expand...

So, a citizen's arrest may be made for misdemeanors as well as felonies in WA State.

imported post

I am guessing about Wa law, but I think that the perp must go past the point of purchase before they can be detained. In Montana, for example concealment is sufficient to establish intent to steal. (That was when I was a judge there)

Jim

imported post

Many states have regulations allowing "citizen's arrest". However just because CAN do it doesn't mean one SHOULD do it.

One big reason is that, just like open carry, most people don't know it's lawful. So expect a lot of resistance. Not just from the person being arrested but from any bystanders. We have discussed the right of someone to resist what they perceive as an unlawful arrest. Now, just because someone may have committed a crime doesn't mean theylose that right.

Remember there is no way for Joe Average to tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. And don't expect the responding officers to slap you on the back, congratulate you or hand you a medal. Many officers frown on the practice because IF it was not performed properly it could cause all charges against the person being dismissed with no leave to reinstate.

Also remember that police officers go through a LOT of training in arrest procedures. It's not as easy as it looks on TV. It'swell established that the majority of officers shot in the line of duty are shot with their own weapons. The vast majority of them lost control of their weapons while attempting an arrest.

Performing a citizen's Arrest for a Felony is rather simple. In some places you can make an arrest merely on suspicion of a felony having been committed. In other places it must have been witnessed by you.Misdemeanors, on the other hand, can be rather tricky. One must be positively certain that it was in fact an arrestable offense. And the misdemeanour MUST have been committed in your presence. Which means you had to have clearly seen it happen. In many jurisdictions even sworn peace officers cannot arrest for a misdemeanor not personally observed.

Having said that, I do think that citizen's arrest is a good tool to have in the toolbox. But like any power tool it must be used with utmost caution.

My advice (which is worth exactly 3.141549 times what you paid for it) is that unless it is a heinous offence or a matter of life or death, simply stand back and be the best witness you can be. And if you decide that performing a citizens arrest is absolutely necessary think twice about even thinkingabout drawing your handgun. You MUST be able to articulate that it was essential to do so in order to prevent possible death or serious physical injury.

Expect to spend a lot of time giving statements. You'll be giving them to the police. To the Prosecuting attorney. To the defense attorney as well. And possibly to the insurance company (attorneys). Cops get court pay. You won't.

If you "save the day" you'll probably get 0% of the praise. But if it goes wrong you'll get 100% of the blame.

Now, understand that everything I have said above is aimed at unassisted citizen's arrest. In many jurisdictions the police can only take a subject into custody for an unobserved misdemeanor after a citizen, who witnessed the act,has already "arrested" them. This type of citizen's arrest is usually performed with a peace officer present. Once the subject is "arrested" the police then take charge and the system takes over. Assisted Citizen's Arrest is much safer and simpler and I encourage everyone to use that option when it's presented.

Some other things to consider are the regulation in your locale regarding how the police are to treat a citizen's arrest. In some areas once an officer is notified that a citizen's arrest has been made they are obligated to treat it just the same as if a brother officer had done it. They can't second guess it. While in other areas the sworn officers havesome discretion as to whether to proceed or not. The bottom line is that IF you even think youMIGHT ever consider performing an unassisted citizen's arrest, make sure you know enough about thelawsto cover your assets.

And just like with open carry, don't be surprised if you have to do some on-the-spot field training with the responding officers.

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

I am guessing about Wa law, but I think that the perp must go past the point of purchase before they can be detained. In Montana, for example concealment is sufficient to establish intent to steal. (That was when I was a judge there)

Jim

Click to expand...

It's more like the Montana law here as well. According to that AG opinion I posted, just putting the merchandise in your pocket is enough to be considered felonious intent. Asportation (removal) is an additional element of, but not a requirement in and of itself for the petit larceny.

imported post

BluesBear wrote:

Many states have regulations allowing "citizen's arrest". However just because CAN do it doesn't mean one SHOULD do it.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear. I only offered the AG opinion in rebuttal to the statement that LP (or anyone for that matter) can not arrest someone for anything other than a felony. I in no way would encourage any of us peons attempt doing it!

One HUGE thing to remember. Us peons do not have the same protection that LEO does when it comes to "false arrest". And the bar will be MUCH higher for the peon.

imported post

In doing some research on the Citizen's Arrest topic, I ran across this VERY interesting "Use of force" guide published by Criminal Justic Training Commission. It's for armed security/armed private detectives. Which they equate to private citizens. Quite an interesting read!

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/forms/private_security/Study_Guide.pdf

Found this quote to be rather amusing... And remember this is for ARMED security!

Unless faced with a deadly threat from which it is impossible to escape, the guard or detective would be well advised to withdraw or retreat to a position of safety, while calling for police assistance.

Click to expand...

imported post

VERY interesting read. Thanks for sharing that with us Greg. I recommend that everyone read it thoroughly. Lots of good information as well as common sense in there.

I really like the way they incorporate Cooper's Four Rules almost verbatim.

The only thing I really disagree with and it's what prevented me from becoming a bail recovery agent when I first moved here, is the idiotic rule about only being allowed to carry the exact gun(s) you qualified/were certifiedwith.:banghead:



I could accept it if they only meant that you had to be certified with a revolver in order to carry a revolver or you could only carry a semi-auto if you were certified with a semi-auto. But to restrict it to certain, specific guns is just out-dated and stupid.

:cuss:

imported post

BluesBear wrote:

The only thing I really disagree with and it's what prevented me from becoming a bail recovery agent when I first moved here, is the idiotic rule about only being allowed to carry the exact gun(s) you qualified/were certifiedwith.:banghead:

Click to expand...

I thought that was pretty rediculous as well. In fact it almost sounds as if you can't be "qualified" on a Beretta 92FS, but ONLY the Beretta 92FS that I currently own. If I purchased another, I'd have to re-qualify.

imported post

gregma wrote:

Just to be clear. I only offered the AG opinion in rebuttal to the statement that LP (or anyone for that matter) can not arrest someone for anything other than a felony.

Click to expand...

I said that LP can, it's mall security that can't. But that's just semantics, and not really worth arguing... what I was really wanting to reply about was to thank you for posting that AG opinion. I've never heard of it; I was just going off of the RCWs. So thank you for bringing that to my attention.

On the subject of citizens arrest, I think most of us can agree that asside from stopping a serious felony, most of us wouldn't really want to be liable for the aftermath of an arrest. This might be a good thread to start in the "Off topic" forum, or somewhere else. I think this would be a good thing to discuss, and we could probably get a lot of different opinions.


ETA:

BTW, thank you for posting that guide. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, since I'm at work, but I'll try to check it out durring a break.