• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Illegal Detainment?

Based on the events described, the man is guilty of

  • Nothing at all, he can hold you until you get a dot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Assault, for placing a hand on you

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Assault and illegal Imprisonment, for preventing your exit

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bad judgement, just get over it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Armed4Life

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
164
Location
Pinal County, AZ, ,
imported post

Below is an incident that happened at the Crossroads Gun Show in Tuscon last weekend. Based on my account, please take the poll.
I purchased 2 weapons at the show and headed for the exit. At the exit, I was stopped by a man (presumably a Crossroads employee) who indicated that I could not exit until he saw a dot for each weapon. For those who haven't purchased a gun at a Crossroads gun show. Each seller is supposed to attach a dot to each weapon sold (to minimize the chance of theft I guess). I informed him that I was not given a dot for one of the two weapons but had the receipt he could inspect if he liked. He said he didn't care about the receipt and would not let me leave without seeing a dot for both weapons. I told him he did not have any right to prevent me from leaving and began to walk by him, at which point he put his hand on my chest as to stop me from leaving. He again demanded that I get a dot before being permitted to leave. Fortunately, the sellers table was within 20 feet of the exit and he saw the commotion. I walked over and he gave me the required dot at which point I exited.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

In this particular case, with a sales receipt present there was no excuse for what happened other than total brain-dead, lack of thought on the part of security. Even a polite request to return and obtain the "dot"--perhaps with some explanation of why that is needed over an actual receip--would have been far more appropriate than what you relate here.

And I am certainl learly of suggesting that anyone be allowed to use force. OTOH, I am also growing tired of living in a society where the least law abiding, or most rude person in any situation is going to get his way. I believe that a store proprietor (or his agent) SHOULD be allowed to use reasonable force to prevent theft. And a flat hand on a chest or blocking an exit until evidence that the merchandise in someone's possession has, in fact, been properly purchased, does not seem unreasonable to me.

I hasten to add, that in your case, with a receipt in hand, the "dot" should not have been necessary. And I always favor good manners over force whenever possible. But I can also see the more general case of a business needing, and I believe having a right (though perhaps not legal authorization) to use modest and reasonable force to prevent theft and detain suspects for brief periods to either sort it out or let the police arrive to sort it out.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Number 5: Bad judgement; raise hell in a complaint. Take no excuses.

I think the slope slips when the presence or absence of a pre-arranged indicator like a "dot" establishes reasonable suspicion of theft.

This is a little likethose police who think that only guiltysubjects stand on their constitutional rights; therefore everybody who does is suspect. There is no room in theirbrains for the thought that some citizens will stand on their rights simply tofully exercise their rights and enjoy the protections afforded; thus, they make no allowance for this category of person in their contacts.

Let the merchants deal with loss preventionin the time-honored fashions. They could evenhave checkpoints, just as long as theymake allowancethat from time to time some clerk is gonna forget to put on the dot, and from time to time some citizen is going to refuse the checkpointer's inquiry.
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
imported post

i voted assault and illegal imprisonment, but I really think the best answer is for you to get over it. You knew the rules. Going in the door is tacit agreement to follow them.
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

ilbob wrote:
i voted assault and illegal imprisonment, but I really think the best answer is for you to get over it. You knew the rules. Going in the door is tacit agreement to follow them.

So, if you go to a Walmart and the person checking the receipt at the door put his hands on your wife because, perhaps, she was ahead of you and you had the receipt, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

Even giving tacet agreement to abide by their rules (BS in my opinion) does not give their personnel a right to assault me or my family.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Yesterday morning my coffee pot quit:cuss:so after a visit to the dentist's office :what:I decided to stop by Wal-Mart to get a new one. I actually needed two (one for home andone for my office) but after getting completely aggravated withWM Iwalked out with the new one sitting on the check out counter. The people who shop at Wal-Mart do not seem to be able to count to 10 so I understand why they can make so much money.

Anyway I go to a different store (Roses), find a pot, walk right up to the counter to pay for it (nice clerk:) who even asked ifI wasover 55, I am:dude:) and got a discount. Great transaction, I paid for it, she gave me the receipt and placed a piece of tape on itto show that I had paid for it since I had no need to put it in a bag that I would have to throw away when I got home along with the box and packing materials.

I should have put the first one in my car,gone back in and gotten a second one and walked out. If they had tried to question me I could have shown them the receipt for a coffee pot. If they askedabout the piece of tape I could have said eff you and walked on. If they tried to physically stop me since they didn't have a policeman there I could then sue them for assault.By the time the police got there I could have been home and they would have a heck of a time proving that I stole a coffee pot even with tapes.I am not sure where everyone wants to draw the line about illegal detainment and actual theft. Also what about citizen's arrest? How does a business reasonably prevent theft? :question:
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
PT111 wrote:
How does a business reasonably prevent theft? :question:

LP and video surveillance, in my opinion.
What good does this do if you can't prevent them from leaving if you see them stealing? I find it ironic that on the same board where a man is championed for killing two robbers in Texas deny the right of a security guard in a store to even detain robbers. Maybe if he shot them rather than putting his hand on them?:uhoh:
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

PT111 wrote:
Wynder wrote:
PT111 wrote:
How does a business reasonably prevent theft? :question:

LP and video surveillance, in my opinion.
What good does this do if you can't prevent them from leaving if you see them stealing? I find it ironic that on the same board where a man is championed for killing two robbers in Texas deny the right of a security guard in a store to even detain robbers. Maybe if he shot them rather than putting his hand on them?:uhoh:

You said 'prevent theft' not 'stop a thief'... Two different things. In any case, they can get a description/video/photo of the person, get the plates of the vehicle they get into, watch the direction they leave and call the police.

As for the 'right of a security guard ... to detain robbers' -- I doubt you'll find many stores that condone this because, if they're wrong, they're opening themselves and the company up to huge civil and even criminal liabilities.

Maybe if he shot them rather than putting his hand on them?
So, shooting someone in a, potentially, crowded store is worth the risk of retaining a peice of property that can fit in a pocket? There's a distinct difference between THEFT and violating the sanctity and security of someone's home.
 

kurtmax_0

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
794
Location
Auburn, Alabama, USA
imported post

Also, the security guard asking for a 'dot' or 'receipt' or even to stop because some stupid buzzer goes off never saw you steal anything. Most theft from a wal-mart type store would be a misdemeanor and in my state someone has to personally observe you in actually committing the crime before they can even touch you. If it's a felony (maybe if you stole something over a certain amount), then they still have to have reasonable suspicion...

I guarantee that:

1. No wal-mart clerk/receipt checker has any clue about these laws
2. They wouldn't know reasonable suspicion vs not showing them your receipt if it hit them in the face
 

Armed4Life

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
164
Location
Pinal County, AZ, ,
imported post

PT111 wrote:
Yesterday morning my coffee pot quit:cuss:so after a visit to the dentist's office :what:I decided to stop by Wal-Mart to get a new one.  I actually needed two (one for home andone for my office) but after getting completely aggravated with WM I walked out with the new one sitting on the check out counter.  The people who shop at Wal-Mart do not seem to be able to count to 10 so I understand why they can make so much money.

Anyway I go to a different store (Roses), find a pot, walk right up to the counter to pay for it (nice clerk:) who even asked if I was over 55 , I am:dude:) and got a discount.  Great transaction, I paid for it, she gave me the receipt and placed a piece of tape on it to show that I had paid for it since I had no need to put it in a bag that I would have to throw away when I got home along with the box and packing materials.

I should have put the first one in my car, gone back in and gotten a second one and walked out.  If they had tried to question me  I could have shown them the receipt for a coffee pot.  If they asked about the piece of tape I could have said eff you and walked on.  If they tried to physically stop me since they didn't have a policeman there I could then sue them for assault. By the time the police got there I could have been home and they would have a heck of a time proving that I stole a coffee pot even with tapes. I am not sure where everyone wants to draw the line about illegal detainment and actual theft.  Also what about citizen's arrest?  How does a business reasonably prevent theft? :question:

PT111
Remember in my description, I had a receipt and offered to show it (which has the weapon's serial # on it). I think the main issue is the arbitrary nature of requiring a dot before being allowed to exit. What if they required you to wear a Ronald McDonald wig before being allowed to exit or submit to a photograph? Also, the gun show organizer Crossroads, doesn't sell any guns so why are they so concerned about theft?
 

protector84

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Arizona, U.S.
imported post

Not a lawyer, but here is my understanding of the legalities of the situation. A security guard in many ways is a police officer. The only real difference is that their jurisdiction is limited to the private property they are patrolling. However, they can detain you, cuff you, and hold you until the real police arrive. The same actually applies to a citizen's arrest. You or I could actually arrest someone for a crime and hold them until the police arrive. Even if it is legal, it is a very bad idea because of other legalities behind it. These include the fact that you are putting yourself at risk, you probably aren't properly trained to do it, and the slightest mistake on your part will likely end up resulting in a lawsuit against you as well as criminal charges. The rule of thumb, however, is that as long as the security guard's or the citizen's arrest or other actions are done using the same procedures a real officer would have to abide by, it is legal.

Some of these procedures include that the security guard or citizen cannot use excessive force to stop a criminal and the individual must have probable cause. Probable cause means that there is some evidence that a crime may have been committed. Probable cause is weaker than a "preponderance of the evidence" or "reasonable doubt" in that only a small bit of evidence is required. Sad to say but if it has been made clear that all merchandise must contain a red dot before exiting the building and yours does not have one, that does likely give probable cause that you may be attempting theft. A police officer only has to have probable cause to detain a person and the same applies to a security guard or citizen. The guard ordered you to stop and you did not. This means they are detaining you. However, the real gray area revolves around the hand on the chest. A more logical approach would have been to move toward the exit and block you from leaving or to take the merchandise away from you. Even if the push on the chest is legal, it is a bad idea because of the liability on the business's part. If you sued them, you probably would win.

Again, a security guard basically is a cop but just for that property. The reason why they should be more hesitant to do those kinds of things is because of the lack of credibility they have. People trust police more than rent-a-cops or citizen interventions. That means that people assume that a real officer has been properly trained and that they will be less likely to engage in abusive or inappropriate behavior if you comply with them. Since security guards go through minimal training and a citizen intervention is coming from someone without any credentials, you cannot trust them at all. So again it is probably legal but a bad idea. I know I would be far more likely to resist some store security guard than I would a real officer.
 

protector84

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Arizona, U.S.
imported post

Another example is with searches. A club security guard can search you before entering the club. However, since this search does not have probable cause, you have the right to refuse just as they have the right to prevent you from entering the establishment. So you can refuse the search and then leave. Say the club thinks you are carrying a gun and you are already inside and the security asks to search you. You can again refuse the search and agree to leave the property immediately. They would not have probable cause for a case like this because if they don't allow firearms and you agree to leave, you are already resolving the issue. In order to forcibly search you (by not letting you leave until they do), they have to have probable cause that you are committing an actual crime on the property and that leaving would not resolve the issue (such aswhen they think you are stealing). Anyway, people who want exact information on this should consult a lawyer. This is just my understanding but it is not legal advice.
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

protector84 wrote:
Not a lawyer, but here is my understanding of the legalities of the situation. A security guard in many ways is a police officer.

Again, a security guard basically is a cop but just for that property.
A security guard is a private citizen that's a representitive of themselves and the company they work for, same as the stock boy, same as the cashier, same as the guy behind the computer bench.

Anything these people are doing are done as private citizens and there are no legal statutes that elevate them to anything BUT private citizens.
 

Sitrep

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
150
Location
Here and There, Washington, USA
imported post

I don't have any problem with a search when I enter a place, as I can choose to turn around and not enter. But to require a search, so that I may leave, is a very different situation. They'd better have a big ass sign telling me before I enter that I am surrendering my right to leave at my discretion, and clearly laying out the steps I must go through in order to regain my freedom.
 

ijusam

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
322
Location
Kent county, Delaware, USA
imported post

Sitrep wrote:
I don't have any problem with a search when I enter a place, as I can choose to turn around and not enter. But to require a search, so that I may leave, is a very different situation. They'd better have a big ass sign telling me before I enter that I am surrendering my right to leave at my discretion, and clearly laying out the steps I must go through in order to regain my freedom.
+1
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Armed4Life wrote:
Below is an incident that happened at the Crossroads Gun Show in Tuscon last weekend. Based on my account, please take the poll.
I purchased 2 weapons at the show and headed for the exit. At the exit, I was stopped by a man (presumably a Crossroads employee) who indicated that I could not exit until he saw a dot for each weapon. For those who haven't purchased a gun at a Crossroads gun show. Each seller is supposed to attach a dot to each weapon sold (to minimize the chance of theft I guess). I informed him that I was not given a dot for one of the two weapons but had the receipt he could inspect if he liked. He said he didn't care about the receipt and would not let me leave without seeing a dot for both weapons. I told him he did not have any right to prevent me from leaving and began to walk by him, at which point he put his hand on my chest as to stop me from leaving. He again demanded that I get a dot before being permitted to leave. Fortunately, the sellers table was within 20 feet of the exit and he saw the commotion. I walked over and he gave me the required dot at which point I exited.
I do not believe the common law "shop keeper's privilege" would apply here; the Crossroads employee comitted a battery at common law, and pssibly a battery at your state's criminal law. I believe it would have been lawful touse reasonable but not deadly force against the employee to make your way out of the gun show - but you should ask a lawyer from your state this question.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
Armed4Life wrote:
Below is an incident that happened at the Crossroads Gun Show in Tuscon last weekend. Based on my account, please take the poll.
I purchased 2 weapons at the show and headed for the exit. At the exit, I was stopped by a man (presumably a Crossroads employee) who indicated that I could not exit until he saw a dot for each weapon. For those who haven't purchased a gun at a Crossroads gun show. Each seller is supposed to attach a dot to each weapon sold (to minimize the chance of theft I guess). I informed him that I was not given a dot for one of the two weapons but had the receipt he could inspect if he liked. He said he didn't care about the receipt and would not let me leave without seeing a dot for both weapons. I told him he did not have any right to prevent me from leaving and began to walk by him, at which point he put his hand on my chest as to stop me from leaving. He again demanded that I get a dot before being permitted to leave. Fortunately, the sellers table was within 20 feet of the exit and he saw the commotion. I walked over and he gave me the required dot at which point I exited.
I do not believe the common law "shop keeper's privilege" would apply here; the Crossroads employee comitted a battery at common law, and pssibly a battery at your state's criminal law. I believe it would have been lawful touse reasonable but not deadly force against the employee to make your way out of the gun show - but you should ask a lawyer from your state this question.
A quick grab and twist. Dislocated his thumb at least. Reasonable force for removing his hand from my chest, as I would immediately assume that he was attempting to grab me for the possible purpose of hitting me.
 
Top