TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote: What keeps them from doing one?

Me. Saying "don't touch me". Removing the hands. That's not happening. Indicating I'm happy to wait for law enforcement.

A LEO can do it, based on the report of a security guard suspecting something, that's fine... Unjust, maybe, but that's what I'd do as a LEO based on a one-sided report. I'll deal with that minor indignity. We'll work that out afterwards.

Would I escalate that to shooting someone if a non-LEO got insistent? No.. That's not worth it on my end and it's not the appropriate penalty for the crime. Can they do it effectively - I suppose so if they were that physically capable and willing...

Big difference between being authorized to use force, like a LEO, where courts have indicated that the amount of force allowed to affect an arrest is almost without limit AND that of a shopkeeper where "reasonable" force is authorized. That is, if I'm not leaving, it's not reasonable to handcuff me or proceed beyond blocking my exit... I'm not going to necessarily escalate in the face of a minor injustice...

RoyGBiv wrote:In theory, I don't have any problem with Walmart (or any other store) wanting to check my receipt. In theory.
Theft is a real problem. It drives up the cost of goods for all of us. If receipt checking catches thieves, it's a small inconvenience.

Say I had something that wasn't on my receipt. If the screener catches it, is that theft? Or do they simply return you to the register?

We've got people checking receipts, but we've also got stores that do self-checkout. Seems odd to me.

My understanding is that employee-theft is actually the much bigger cause of retail loss. Might have something to do with what you pay and who you hire.

I think of a good "suspect" situation - anyone ever have one of those buzzers go off at the exit? I know I have and I didn't steal anything... That's a situation where if you keep going it could escalate quickly.

Abraham,
I get that at Walmart from time to time. It's obviously some form of deterrent, but they have the more senior "greeter" types do it, I'm not sure how effective it is. I guess they don't want you wheeling out a TV.
You qualified Costco as you mentioned the membership aspect. Frys has no membership and they have the same policy. Sometimes I've waited several minutes to get out the door. We stand for it as consumers.

Why do we stand for it? We stand for it just like we stand for being stopped and questioned inland of the border. We stand for it just like we stand for wasting hours at the TSA, not to mention Billions of tax dollars.

As you mentioned, you can just walk out, but that's not the polite thing to do.


DCPhoto, The law doesn't require that you had to steal something. The law requires that they suspect you of stealing something. That could mean that they didn't put the appropriate sticker on your case of coke that's under the cart. It might mean that you dropped something into a basket in a way that looked like it went into your purse. There is a middle ground where the detention is still defendable, even though they got it wrong... Human beings do get it wrong.

dcphoto wrote: I'm not sure you understood what I wrote, because I specifically pointed out that deadly force is not justified for simply being stopped. I also said I would only use the force necessary and justified under law. As I'm sure you are aware, someone grabbing me is assault, and self defense is justified. I would be perfectly justified to remove their grasp by force (I'm not talking about punching or kicking, just grabbing and pulling a hand off.), and even push the person away to effect retreat.

Yea, it wasn't clear to me as you brought assault into it. I thought you were suggesting that you'd defend yourself with deadly force if assaulted by a security guard who is trying to physically prevent you from leaving. And yes, I realize that grabbing an arm can be considered a form of assault. It's an odd situation. You're justified to respond to what you might perceive to be an assault. They're justified to detain you by reasonable means, which might include grabbing you or grabbing a purse that has a weapon in it.

Potentially a jury gets to work it out in hindsight and I'd rather be not be on the defense side of that deal..

Someone explain to me why documenting these incidents is against policy? Don't most stores have videos up and running all the time to provide documentation of shoplifting incidents? I can understand why the policy might frown on physical apprehension, but I can't think of why recording an incident is bad.


There's a little too much "circumstantial" in the security trying to take your gun scenario. I don't know who is necessarily in the wrong there. The legislation discussed above gives defense from prosecution or civil liability assuming they had reasonable cause to think you were stealing (whatever that is). I can see how that situation gets bad very quickly.

dcphoto wrote: I don't think anybody is suggesting pulling a gun simply because you were stopped. However, if an overzealous employee got physical with me I would defend myself with whatever amount of force is necessary, and justified in the eyes of the law, to meet the threat. I say this with the certainty that I will not be shoplifting in the foreseeable future.

Do you mean if they physically grabbed you by the arm to stop you from leaving? That happens. If you think that's legal justification for deadly force, your understanding is different than mine.

Personally if a store employee actually assaulted me because they thought I was shoplifting, I'm not going to shoot them. I'm going to sue them. Much better outcome on both sides. Assuming I'm not dying, why the heck would I want to be on the defense side of that incident?

dcphoto wrote: My question then: does a store's employee have to meet the same standard of reasonable suspicion that a peace officer has to?

The "reasonable suspicion" bit is my own writing. The actual verbiage is "suspect" that a theft occurred. I'm assuming that the suspicion has to be reasonable or based on something "articulable" - that is, it can be described and isn't simply a gut instinct, but that verbiage isn't actually there. And remember what they do to detain must be "reasonable". My guess is that a lot of this is ill-defined because it'll be very circumstantial and potentially litigious. I understand why some employers don't allow loss prevention to get into physical altercations.

The alternate means of loss prevention seems to be that used by companies like Costco and Frys - everyone gets checked on the way out.

E.Marquez wrote: The way that reads... they must know you have stolen property? Yes?

I don't read it that way across the various statues. They have to have a reasonable suspicion that you have their property. IE - they can detain you based on that suspicion using reasonable means.

Saffron wrote:I will defend myself if they try to use force and I don't think any jury in Texas would convict me as a woman who defended herself from strangers who assault her.

As a woman with a gun, your self-defense capabilities are the same as a man with a gun once the gun is out. I don't think the law is different because you're a woman. A jury might disagree. If you use your handgun to defend against a reasonable attempt to detain you by someone who is obviously a security officer, you've clearly got more money than I do and much more sure of a Texas jury than I am. I'd never want to be in that position. I'll sacrifice a little bit of liberty in exchange for less legal and financial risk.

Defending yourself from "an assault" is different. I don't think that "reasonable" rises to the level of assault, so hopefully it's a non-issue.

Without copying, it does look like they can detain you under "SHOP-KEEPER'S PRIVILEGE" if they *suspect* that you might have stolen something. That is, detain you without consent and they are exempt from being charged with False Imprisonment.

The means by which they can detain you - or that any other person could detain you are detailed:
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 124.001; Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 18.16

Specifically, this grants:
1) The ability for them to take the property that they suspect was stolen.
2) The ability for them to bring the person that stole it ("if that person can be taken") with the property
3) The manner of the detention must be "reasonable" and for a reasonable time

The question is what manner, if you're suspected of theft, is "reasonable"?