TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:<SNIP>
It's a complicated world and the law is sometimes something one finds after spending much time and money in court.

I think I'm using this one.

EEllis wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote: <SNIP>
I can point to two incidents in my own life where it turned ugly quickly and the LP in one instance was injured. Came up behind me, said "Stop." and put his hand on my shoulder. Once he was down and I had control we got the cops involved and even after he explained why he approached me, I was asked if I wanted to prefer charges. I did not.

<SNIP> In that case if you were not stealing, because I bet the cops did check that out with you right, you might be successful in court but if you were found stealing I doubt that would pass. And then of course you have the difference between what the cop might think and what the court might do and what the law says. In very few cases is the law black and white. I remember years ago talking to an attorney who said most of his business wasn't did they "do" it or not, but what it was they did. Meaning facts were reasonable clear but what crime fit those facts was the big argument.

Well, that kind of ties it up in a neat little bow, seems like what is legal from a "reasonableness" standard leans in favor of the retailer. In my case it was pretty clearly he didn't like my looks, big with heavy red beard and biking leathers (if he could see me now, LOL). He tried to convince the cops that he saw me put something in my pocket but could neither articulate the what or the where. The cops in turn asked me my name, looked at I.D. and made some crack about the security guy needing to pick his targets a little more carefully.

The irony is, if he had said something to me, I would have worked with him. I am a nice guy, until I'm not.

Thanks for fleshing that out for me.

Okay, this isn't intended to stir the pot,muddy the waters or anything of that nature but a consideration/question has occurred to me after reading this thread.

EEllis has explained to my satisfaction that there exists legal authority to detain and probably conduct a cursory search if they believe an actor to be in the act of thieving.

I did a little stint in LP and then as commissioned security patrol, working my way through college, and had some incidents that relate, at least tangentially. From the LP side there were no "do not confront" admonitions then but a strict "they have to exit" rule. I used a rather imposing, yet dashing, presence and wording to hold the person until police arrived. From the commissioned security side I had a couple of felony in progress incidents where some force and threat of force was used.

What I remember from those days about "citizen's arrest" which was where a security officer's authority resided was witnessed felony, or in the case of theft "reasonable suspicion" (previously discussed) and the example I like to use there was a lobby guard gets a call that a man stole a red purse and ran down the stairs. A man runs out of the stair well carrying a red purse, that is "reasonable suspicion" and the stop is made and person detained for a magistrate, or LEO considered working at the behest of a magistrate and is proper even if THIS guy was trying to catch his wife who had coincidentally left her purse on hubby's desk. I am certain those amongst our membership that are still in the profession can clarify or correct as needed.

I said all that to say this, in every encounter I had one of the earliest things was me saying who I was and exactly why I was approaching, detaining or otherwise. Thus my question. A lot has been said about "resisting" a store keeper's detention and searches and Mr Ellis has suggested that doing so, even if the proprietor was wrong would likely be criminal. If said store owner approaches under "reasonable" suspicion but hasn't said something to the effect of, "Sir, I need you to stop. We need to check your bags because of "X, Y Z" reason," and lays hands on you first or just impedes your exit, then would it not be reasonable for the person being "accosted" at this point to "reasonably" believe they are being harassed or otherwise threatened?

I can point to two incidents in my own life where it turned ugly quickly and the LP in one instance was injured. Came up behind me, said "Stop." and put his hand on my shoulder. Once he was down and I had control we got the cops involved and even after he explained why he approached me, I was asked if I wanted to prefer charges. I did not.

This discussion is steeped in convoluted hypothetical and hyperbole but with all this discussion of "reasonable suspicion", what about sauce for the goose?