• 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

PT111

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

I tired to find the story ashort while back about a grocery storeclerk was fired for stopping a shoplifter. Does anyone remember this story and what was the situation and result? Seems similar to this question.
 

utbagpiper

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

I'll clearly be unpopular with most here for saying this, but I think the definition (legal and otherwise) of "assault" has gone way too far. A hand, placed on a man's chest with no attempt nor effect to cause any harm should not be considered "assault" in my book, not in these circumstances. It wasn't a dark alley, the security guard clearly was NOT attempting to punch or kick or otherwise harm anyone.

He WAS overly strident in demanding a "dot" rather than accepting the valid sales receipt. Even still, shop lifters have been known to buy something take it to the car, return and walk out with another of the same item using their sales receipt from 5 minutes earlier if stopped. So a secondary indicator is not a bad idea. Yes, a dot might be removed and attached a second time as well if it does not contain tamper resistent features that make clear it has been removed. But if it contains those features it adds a lot of security.

Nobody likes to have his rights infringed. But that includes merchants who don't like having their property stolen. And don't think it doesn't affect you.

A neighbor of mine works at a major home remodeling store and has related that loss from shoptlifting, return scams, and similar crimes accounts for a full 10% of the price you pay for each and every item you buy there. I have no reason think that figure is any lower for other purchases including losses due to theft of cable TV, power, etc.

And why should a police officer, deriving his just powers only as delegated from the populace at large suddenly have more power to physically detain someone suspected of shoplifting than the person who is actually being harmed?

I don't have any easy answers to this and I write not of things as they exist in current statute, but of general principles and I recognize there are two sides to these situations. Nobody likes to be hassled or wrongly accused. But none of us would be happy about being effectively prevented from stopping someone who had stolen something from us, NOR should we be happy with the prospect that others might be so prevented and thus allow a thief to walk away, free to rob again. We can't watch our stuff 24/7. We all park in unsecured lots, or leave our homes unattended and the more thiefs walking free, the higher the chance we find our car window smashed. And the higher the price we pay for everything we purchase.

The gun show should have made clear that there would TWO forms of proof of purchase provided and that showing both would be required to leave the show with any purchased merchandise.

The seller should have made sure to mark your merchandise as properly paid for.

The guard maybe should have used a little more tact and politeness to encourage compliance.

And the purchaser should have been a little more willing to comply with the first request to return and obtain the required proof of purchase.

Flame away.
 

PT111

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

I fially found the story so if you shop in Whole Foods Market don't bother to pay for whatever you want.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/grocery_worker_fired_for_stopp.html
John Schultz says he lost his job at Whole Foods Market in Ann Arbor after he tried to stop a shoplifter from making a getaway. But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer - even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods.

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store, 3135 Washtenaw Ave. He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot.

Schultz said he told the shoplifter he was making a citizens arrest and to wait for the police to arrive, but the shoplifter broke away from the group and ran across Washtenaw Avenue and toward a gas station at the corner of Huron Parkway.

Before the man could cross Huron Parkway, Schultz caught up and grabbed the man's jacket and put his leg behind the man's legs. When the manager arrived at the intersection, Schultz said, the manager told him to release the shoplifter, and he complied, and the shoplifter got away.

Schultz said he was called to the store's office the next day, on Christmas Eve, and was fired because he violated a company policy prohibiting employees from having any physical contact with a customer.



Kate Klotz, a company spokesperson, said the policy is clear and listed in a booklet that all employees have to acknowledge that they received before they can start work.

"The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination," said Klotz.

Schultz said he acted as a private citizen on property that isn't owned by Whole Foods, but Klotz said where the incident happened doesn't change the policy.

"He is still considered an employee of Whole Foods Market regardless of where he was and what was happening," she said.

The police report of the incident doesn't mention Schultz's involvement. It says police responded to the call of retail fraud at 7:09 p.m. and could not locate the shoplifter.

The thief was described as a thin white male, 5-foot-10, in his mid-20s, wearing a black jacket, tan pants and carrying a backpack.

The report says store employees were suspicious when the man walked into the store and they watched as he filled up a basket and then took it into a bathroom. When he came out, his basket was empty, but his backpack looked full. Then he filled up a canvas store tote bag with groceries, and walked out the door.

The manager and the other employee told police they caught up to the shoplifter at the corner of Washtenaw and Huron Parkway. It says one of them grabbed the tote bag away from the shoplifter, and the suspect walked away. The bag contained $346 worth of food and other products.

Schultz, 35, of Ypsilanti Township, had worked at the store for five years, most recently as a fishmonger. He wants his job back.

"The fact that I worked at the store at (the time of the robbery) is coincidental," he said. "If I had went over to the book store on my break and they were being ripped off, I would have helped them."
 

Wynder

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

utbagpiper wrote:
I'll clearly be unpopular with most here for saying this, but I think the definition (legal and otherwise) of "assault" has gone way too far. A hand, placed on a man's chest with no attempt nor effect to cause any harm should not be considered "assault" in my book, not in these circumstances. It wasn't a dark alley, the security guard clearly was NOT attempting to punch or kick or otherwise harm anyone.

Maybe not, but he was restricting someone's freedom of travel and, if you go that route, you have everyone who'll say, "I did not intend to hurt him, it just happened." People are their own persons -- keep your hands off of what does not belong to you, especially if that is another human being... I don't care who you are or what you may think I've done, but do not touch me.

The guard had the choice of simply putting himself between the customer and the door, but he chose to escalate the situation by making the scenario include physical touching. Ultimately people have these choices to make and they should be made to bear the responsibility of their own actions.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

"Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder." (Doug Huffman, various) "Offense, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder."

Assault, however benign its intentions, is an assault and with physical contact may even be battery.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
 

jack

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
228
Location
Clayton, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Ithink it would have been hilarious if you had been a cop buying a couple of guns. I probably would have shoved the guy right back. He illegally detained you. For a security guard or loss prevention employee to detain you they have to actually see you steal something. This idiot knew you had the receipt. I would file a complaint with the management. At the gun shows I have been to the individual dealers are required to control their own inventory, there is no dot checker.

A dot checker needs to be someone with a bit more common since. That guywas anidiot. Security guards can be a real pain in the ass. Ytubehas prove of them doing all sorts of illegal encroachments.

Put an idiot "in charge" and you will have problems.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

I have seen these "dots" used at gun shows, and had to laugh. They prove nothing; they usually don't survive the next trip down the aisle, let alone to the end of the day and out the door. They're just peel-and-stick dots, like those people use for pricing good at garage sales.

What if you had carried those two guns in hoping to sell them? You'd have stopped and had them wire-tied (as I'm sure the promoter requires), spent the day strolling about with no luck, and then tried to leave without any dots.
 

Armed4Life

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

We'll I guess it's time to close the poll. The majority agree that the guy was way out of line and committed at least two crimes in the process. I did email Crossroads to get their response and asked them to properly train their personnel. No response yet (not suprising) I will post their reply if there is one.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, 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. 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.
I don't believe any of this, can you site laws supporting yourstatements. A security guard is not a cop in any stretch of the imagination and only havethe powers of non-sworn LEO.
 

utbagpiper

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

Wynder wrote:

Maybe not, but he was restricting someone's freedom of travel and, if you go that route, you have everyone who'll say, "I did not intend to hurt him, it just happened." People are their own persons -- keep your hands off of what does not belong to you, especially if that is another human being... I don't care who you are or what you may think I've done, but do not touch me.

The guard had the choice of simply putting himself between the customer and the door, but he chose to escalate the situation by making the scenario include physical touching. Ultimately people have these choices to make and they should be made to bear the responsibility of their own actions.
Let me be clear, I believe the proprietor of a business SHOULD be allowed to exercise modest and reasonable restrictions on "freedom of travel" in order to prevent theft of his goods and to apprehend those reasonably suspected of such theft.

And I fail to see how physically impeding travel with your body is any less offensive or potentially dangerous than a flat hand extended across a path or placed lightly on a man's chest. In ANY event, if unjustified harm occurs it can and should be addressed. But this notion that ANY touch is "assault" or "battery" has gone too far in my estimation.

So the guard blocks your path with his body. Now what if you can't simply step around him? If you push past him you touched him first and you are guilty of assualt? But justified because he was engaged in illegal detainment? But we all accept that a sworn police officer, deriving his just powers ONLY from what the rest of us have delegated to him, CAN use appropriate force to prevent someone from fleeing in contradiction of his lawful order? The logic is strained, at best.

The particulars of this case--ie "dot" rather than just accepting a fresh receipt--cloud the underlying issue. Either property owners should have some ability to protect their property or not. And an ability that goes no farther than "stop or I'll say stop again" is only funny in bad english comedy.

If shopkeepers have no proper ability limit your exit from their store even momentarily to ascertain poper ownership of whatever items you clearly have in hand, then simply say so. And be prepared to pay MUCH higher prices to make up for the ever growing number of thefts. But I believe it perfectly proper for store owners (or their agents) to request proof of purchase (or prior ownership) before leaving the premises with obvious store offerings in hand. I think a refusal to comply with such requests is not only rude, but ought to be construed as perfectly reasonable grounds to investigate further, including, if push comes to shove, a temporary detainment until the police can arrive to sort it out.

Again, I'm clearly unpopular for holding this view. But if we do not allow shop keepers some practical and reasonable ability to prevent theft AND to detain those reasonably suspected of theft we are not only denying their rights but also hampering all of our abilty to buy what we need without also having to pay for massive losses from theft.

I hasten to add that I write NOT of laws as the currently exist, but of what I believe to be basic principles that SHOULD be--but are not necessarily--reflected in our laws.

Charles
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

"Again, I'm clearly unpopular for holding this view. But if we do not allow shop keepers some practical and reasonable ability to prevent theft AND to detain those reasonably suspected of theft we are not only denying their rights but also hampering all of our abilty to buy what we need without also having to pay for massive losses from theft."



They do have the power in most states of arrest if they so choose. But they better be right! Any time you use force to detain and your complaint turns out to be false you have in essence commited unlawful restraint or kidnapping. Even if local prosecutors declinethere is always a good cause for civil action.
 

utbagpiper

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

lockman wrote:
They do have the power in most states of arrest if they so choose. But they better be right! Any time you use force to detain and your complaint turns out to be false you have in essence commited unlawful restraint or kidnapping. Even if local prosecutors declinethere is always a good cause for civil action.
I would argue that a shop keeper should be permitted modest and reasonable detentions upon probable cause without fear of civil or criminal action. And I'd hold that having store merchandise in your possession IS probable cause to determine proof of purchase via receipt (time stamped or marking a receipt on the way out as Costco does to prevent future use in a shoplifting scam a good idea), consultation with the selling clerk, or other reasonable means.

I will also strongly suggest that those who patronize a store and benefit from the availability of goods SHOULD be willing and anxious to assist shop keepers in quickly and easily making the determination that goods have been properly purchased. I expect most all here would WANT criminals to be apprehended. The scum who robs a Walmart today not only costs me higher prices, but may well graduate to my car in the parking lot, my garage, or even my person at some point in the future.

I'm always amazed when people using a credit card get annoyed when asked for ID by a clerk. I'd LIKE the clerk to ask for photo id EVERY time my card it used. It takes me only a moment and may well prevent theft or fraud at some point.

Put another way, while we all have our rights, in a LOT of cases we are all best served by remembering that we can and ought to also exercise good manners and a little courtesy. That goes both ways and shop keepers are generally keenly aware of the value of their public image. The rest of us are very much aware of our rights and would not take kindly to someone walking off with our property without proper payment. We really ought not take offense when others make modest and reasonable attempts to safeguard their property, even if the effort is a bit unexpected. Indeed, I suspet it was the unexpected nature of the check that was most off-putting and annoying from the get-go. I've never seen anyone object to showing a reciept and having a cart looked over on the way out the door at Costco. It is just part of how that store does business. Frankly, I think more stores should do likewise and make life that much more difficult for the parasites who steal from all of us.
 

me812

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
216
Location
federally occupied Arizona
imported post

If the individual in question is NOT law enforcement, they are not allowed to touch you.

I don't think this is true. Store security guards routinely detain shoplifters, by force if necessary.
 

LuvmyXD9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
126
Location
, ,
imported post

I just don't see the point in making a huge fuss about ASSAULT. The man put his hand on your chest.

I would however file a complaint against the employee for not just looking at your receipt. Places should not employ people that cannot logically deduce a receipt = purchase/refund.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

me812 wrote:
Store security guards routinely detain shoplifters, by force if necessary.
I don't know Az law but that is in effect an arrest so their PC for a private persons arrest better be provable to they could be criminally and/or civilly liable for the forced detention.
 

Armed4Life

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

LuvmyXD9

13-1203. Assault; classification

A. A person commits assault by:

1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or

2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or

3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

B. Assault committed intentionally or knowingly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 is a class 1 misdemeanor. Assault committed recklessly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 is a class 2 misdemeanor. Assault committed pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 3 is a class 3 misdemeanor.
 

LuvmyXD9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
126
Location
, ,
imported post

Armed4Life wrote:
LuvmyXD9

13-1203. Assault; classification

A. A person commits assault by:

1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or

2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or

3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

B. Assault committed intentionally or knowingly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 is a class 1 misdemeanor. Assault committed recklessly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 is a class 2 misdemeanor. Assault committed pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 3 is a class 3 misdemeanor.
I understand the definition, I just think it's a little silly to cry assault for someone placing their hand on you if it didn't cause injury.
 

Wynder

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

Some states also have an 'Offensive Touching' statute that's a little less than assault; however, if the state doesn't, than it's statutized in the assault law as it is here in section three.

You should also note that the penalties are adjusted as such. Call it what you will, but don't blame a victim for wanting to have a person arrested when THEY broke the criminal code.

LuvmyXD9 wrote:
Armed4Life wrote:
LuvmyXD9

13-1203. Assault; classification

A. A person commits assault by:

1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or

2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or

3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

B. Assault committed intentionally or knowingly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 is a class 1 misdemeanor. Assault committed recklessly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 is a class 2 misdemeanor. Assault committed pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 3 is a class 3 misdemeanor.
I understand the definition, I just think it's a little silly to cry assault for someone placing their hand on you if it didn't cause injury.
 

LuvmyXD9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
126
Location
, ,
imported post

Wynder wrote:
Some states also have an 'Offensive Touching' statute that's a little less than assault; however, if the state doesn't, than it's statutized in the assault law as it is here in section three.

You should also note that the penalties are adjusted as such. Call it what you will, but don't blame a victim for wanting to have a person arrested when THEY broke the criminal code.

LuvmyXD9 wrote:
Armed4Life wrote:
LuvmyXD9

13-1203. Assault; classification

A. A person commits assault by:

1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or

2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or

3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

B. Assault committed intentionally or knowingly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 is a class 1 misdemeanor. Assault committed recklessly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 is a class 2 misdemeanor. Assault committed pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 3 is a class 3 misdemeanor.
I understand the definition, I just think it's a little silly to cry assault for someone placing their hand on you if it didn't cause injury.
Then go for illegal imprisonment if the crime fits the statute, I had no problems there. But tacking on assault for putting his hand on your chest is a little extreme.
 

Wynder

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

LuvmyXD9 wrote:
Then go for illegal imprisonment if the crime fits the statute, I had no problems there. But tacking on assault for putting his hand on your chest is a little extreme.

The state legislators apparently didn't think so, did they -- otherwise, what's the point of having the offense on the books? It's penalty matches the offense, so you're whole problem is that it's simple called 'assault'?

If I walk up to you and start pushing you around, are you going to sit there and do nothing, simply because I'm not physically injuring you?

Come on... again, if a person is a victim of a criminal offense, don't begrudge him his right to persue all avenues, -- if you want take your own self-defense and freedoms not quite as seriously as others, that's fine... allow him his security.
 
Top