TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:I doubt there is a lot of case law about CHLs and shoplifting. Generally speaking absent violence there should never be any cuffing.

This. I've been detained plenty of times, and when working security, detained quite a few myself. The only time I was cuffed was when I matched the description of an armed robber in an incident about 15 minutes before and 6-8 blocks away from where I was stopped. The only one I cuffed was a violent drunk. It's not necessary to cuff, or even touch someone in a shoplifting situation unless their actions after the fact make it preferable to the liability nightmare they can create for you; if the guy does a belly flop after you put him in cuffs, guess who's going to be getting the bill for his injuries, especially when you can't show there was a pressing need to physically restrain him in the first place.

EEllis wrote:If it did happen and they cuffed you can you think of any way that it would be a good idea for whoever cuffed you to leave you sitting there with a gun?

Would it be over the top to use the LP guy's cuffs to safely lock up my revolver after I take them off but before the cop shows up?

I still say the best one I've seen was a part-time magician that not only got the cuffs off, but put them back in the officer's belt pouch undetected. Much fun was had when he claimed nobody had cuffed him, and the officer who did it couldn't account for why he still had both pairs of cuffs that he carried.

Knowing that particular magician, if it hadn't been for the retention holster, that cop probably would have also found all the rounds in his mag turned backward.

jimlongley wrote:I was roundly scolded for taking the picture, that's against some rule somewhere,

Yeah, one of the things that keeps me in my current job is that I am no longer willing to work for any company that makes effectively documenting the questionable (or unquestionably nefarious) activities of their people more of an offense than the activities themselves. Had one security job that tried to can me for getting about 50 photos of damage from a truck hitting the gate, fence and retaining wall (including all the identifiers and matching damage on the truck, with measurements showing that all the damage matched up perfectly) until the client told them that those photos upped their claim payout by more than it saved them to have security, so if that was going to be a problem, they wouldn't need our company anymore.

When the security company changed the rules to make mere possession of a personal camera on client property a violation of policy, the client wrote up fairly creative $1/year time-limited leases for all camera equipment owned by security officers, so when we were on duty, our personal cameras became client equipment until the guard left the property. (Also had the nice side benefit of clarifying that they were liable for any damage or theft that happened in reasonable use for their benefit. That was comforting since I kept a nice DSLR with a 300mm zoom lens in the car to save having to follow people to get license plates.)

IIRC, one of the guards actually made the client give him his dollar each year, too