• 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
L

LuvmyXD9

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

Wynder wrote:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Where in that post was he being physically shoved around? From what I read, he put his hand on his chest to prevent him from walking past him.

I see illegal imprisonment. I do not see assault.
 
W

Wynder

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

LuvmyXD9 wrote:
Where in that post was he being physically shoved around? From what I read, he put his hand on his chest to prevent him from walking past him.

I see illegal imprisonment. I do not see assault.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between being shoved around and physically stopped? Neither causes injury, but both would fall under the assault statute.
 
L

LuvmyXD9

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

Wynder wrote:
LuvmyXD9 wrote:
Where in that post was he being physically shoved around? From what I read, he put his hand on his chest to prevent him from walking past him.

I see illegal imprisonment. I do not see assault.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between being shoved around and physically stopped? Neither causes injury, but both would fall under the assault statute.
Click to expand...
A physical shove is a blatant sign of aggression. Placing a hand on someone's chest is not an act of aggression.
 
A

Armed4Life

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

I am merely applying the language of the current statute to the situation Iencountered. Thestatute draws the line at deliberatecontact. There is the caveat in the statuteabout intent to injure (No), insult (No), provoke (YES). Taking thesituation from a verbal discussion to physical contact is a provokation.At least you agree about the unlawful imprisonment
 
L

LuvmyXD9

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

Armed4Life wrote:
I am merely applying the language of the current statute to the situation Iencountered. Thestatute draws the line at deliberatecontact. There is the caveat in the statuteabout intent to injure (No), insult (No), provoke (YES). Taking thesituation from a verbal discussion to physical contact is a provokation.At least you agree about the unlawful imprisonment
Click to expand...

I am not arguing the statute, merely the morality of applying it to the literal translation. This is merely my OPINION, and in no way the one true advice.

By all means OP if you wish to go for assault and unlawful imprisonment, you are within your realm to do so.

I would just think it a bit silly to charge some guy with assault for merely touching you.
 
B

bayboy42

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
897
Location
Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
imported post

utbagpiper wrote


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.
Click to expand...
I bet you write "See ID" on the back of your cards don't you:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
W

Wynder

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

LuvmyXD9 wrote:
I am not arguing the statute, merely the morality of applying it to the literal translation. This is merely my OPINION, and in no way the one true advice.

By all means OP if you wish to go for assault and unlawful imprisonment, you are within your realm to do so.

I would just think it a bit silly to charge some guy with assault for merely touching you.
Click to expand...
What if the guy put his hands on your wife? Or your child? It's all good and fun when a big ol' bouncer pushes you back because, if you visit these forums, you're probably armed. However, if a guy starts pushing on my child or puts his hands on my wife, you can bet my pretty floral bonnet that charges are getting filed.
 
A

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

utbagpiper wrote:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually..... I'll go with that.

Also, I'd like to chime in on the overzealous use of "assault": Yeah, it's stupidly overused.
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

me812 wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
This is often the case. In Virginia they can hold you for one hour and call the police.

But you had a receipt and that was FAR BETTER then a stinking dot.

This guy was fixated on the dot and brain dead to the fact you had a receipt. What would stop you from buying something, getting the dot, and then using the dot on a stolen gun?
 
ATCer

ATCer

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
89
Location
Iraq
imported post

Because, OBVIOUSLY the reciept has no relevant information on it. But the dot has all the information the guard needed to know.
 
B

BigRick

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
23
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

Armed4Life wrote:
I am merely applying the language of the current statute to the situation Iencountered. Thestatute draws the line at deliberatecontact. There is the caveat in the statuteabout intent to injure (No), insult (No), provoke (YES). Taking thesituation from a verbal discussion to physical contact is a provokation.At least you agree about the unlawful imprisonment
Click to expand...

According to Tempe Arizona police (I know someone who knows someone who knows this first hand :uhoh: ), you can not touch any one who has not given permission or has asked to be touched unless it is the police! (Typical in any US city and practical to practice.)

The security guard was wrong in his action, but was not wrong in wanting to prevent the topic starter from leaving without proper purchase identification, IE the DOT.

The topic starter should not have attempted to circumvent the event rules regardless of the sellers fault to place a DOT on the purchased weapon, in fact he should have been aware there was no DOT placed on the weapon!

FYI, If your going to carry (Open or Concealed) you better carry a truck load of common sense first and foremost. :cool:
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

BigRick wrote:
Armed4Life wrote:
I am merely applying the language of the current statute to the situation Iencountered. Thestatute draws the line at deliberatecontact. There is the caveat in the statuteabout intent to injure (No), insult (No), provoke (YES). Taking thesituation from a verbal discussion to physical contact is a provokation.At least you agree about the unlawful imprisonment
Click to expand...

According to Tempe Arizona police (I know someone who knows someone who knows this first hand :uhoh: ), you can not touch any one who has not given permission or has asked to be touched unless it is the police! (Typical in any US city and practical to practice.)

The security guard was wrong in his action, but was not wrong in wanting to prevent the topic starter from leaving without proper purchase identification, IE the DOT.

The topic starter should not have attempted to circumvent the event rules regardless of the sellers fault to place a DOT on the purchased weapon, in fact he should have been aware there was no DOT placed on the weapon!

FYI, If your going to carry (Open or Concealed) you better carry a truck load of common sense first and foremost. :cool:
Click to expand...
I would rather see a cite on this. Rather than word of mouth proof from an friend of a friend's expert on the topic.

I am not sure how loss prevention at a store is going to stop a shoplifter until the police arrive. If they cannot touch the shoplifter... he gets to go free unless they follow him waiting for the police.
 
B

BigRick

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
23
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

The topic starters instance was not loss prevention, IE, stopping a thief, it was an infraction of the gun show rules.

I stated in my post because my friend was jailed for assault for simply placing his hand on some one to prevent them from acting on another.
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

BigRick wrote:
The topic starters instance was not loss prevention, IE, stopping a thief, it was an infraction of the gun show rules.

I stated in my post because my friend was jailed for assault for simply placing his hand on some one to prevent them from acting on another.
Click to expand...
It makes no difference. You are trying to split hairs. He may not have been a "thief" but he failed to have the proper indicators that he paid for the item (with the exception of the receipt). But to me the dot is silly.

It sounds like your friend DID commit assault. He attempted to stop something he believed was going to happen.

He should have waited for the fight to begin before he took action. Nobel act on his part but he is taking a risk. And then.... it is his word or belief something was going to actually occur, right?
 
A

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

BigRick wrote:
The security guard was wrong in his action, but was not wrong in wanting to prevent the topic starter from leaving without proper purchase identification, IE the DOT.
Click to expand...

How is a receipt not proper purchase identification?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top