TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: So now you're claiming an LP can effect a search and attempt to disarm you. Ok no thats clearly battery on a person.

Do we really have to keep going over the same thing? No they can't just stop random people but they can stop you if they do so to prevent theft and their actions are "reasonable". There are some examples in the thread of what courts have found reasonable. One was a guy going into HEB with a bag unseen by security. He then left with the bag he came in with and set off the inventory control alarm. He was stopped and held while the store investigated. They found that he didn't have anything of the stores and let him go. He sued and had his case dismissed because his detention was found to be legal. You see that they stopped, held, and searched him right? Yep legal, at least in the correct circumstances.

Stopping is not searching. You do realize that right?

Nor is it disarming, assaulting or any of the other nonsense some keep dreaming up can, might, could happen to a citizen that is mistakenly stopped, and requests law enforcement be called.

Stopped yes, of course, and if stopped then Law enforcement is called (Id be the one calling), while "suspect" is "detained", LP is, will , should be satisfied at that point, job well done.
Then we have a few folks standing around glaring at each other or smiling and chatting..until LEO arrives, 90 sec later and depending on how the LP handled the situation, all walk away happy, or not.

Show me a single case where an innocent person (like one of us would be, you know the demographic group we have been talking about ) was mistakenly suspected of shop lifting, stopped by LP because they were "reasonably" sure that bulge under a shirt was store property, tackled, disarmed, searched against his will by LP, and the courts supported that under "Shop Keepers Privilege"

You're setting up a make believe scenario and saying if I can't find the exact same real case then my statements are incorrect. That isn't how it works. I think you have it right how you think it should go down but what if instead of staying someone tries to leave and resists or even attacks the employees? At that time a merchant can use force to stop someone. If they do and LP end up handcuffing someone, which does happen, then what? So far everything is nice and legal but somehow a pat down crosses some make believe line?