Retail Theft question

[speedsix]

...may have been a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, if it was a BLUEBERRY PIE the guy was stealing...

[sugar land dave]

Similar to what I once posted in another thread, once you and the security guard began struggling with the accused, you owned the results.

[srothstein]

So paid security people and random bystanders can forcibly detain people they think are shoplifting now?

Im not a litigious type, but if a rent a cop and a bystander used force to keep me somewhere, I'd be pressing charges for unlawful detainment and assault.

Another thing to consider before you jump into a situation like that.

Edit: to clarify...I know security guards can stop someone and ask to inspect their bags,ect. But as to wrestling around pinning someone down as stated in the OP... Isn't that overstepping their authority?

It is specifically authorized for them or you to use force for a lawful arrest. One of the justifications in the Penal Code for the use of force is (trimmed to the relevant portion):

Sec. 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH.
(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direction) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape
after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably believes his purpose
and the reason are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

[speedsix]

...here's a pretty good example of such a situation with cites http://causeofactionelements.blogspot.c ... epers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PappaGun]

She is asking for help.

I don't see the issue in helping if she is clearly struggling and you decide you are going to.

No weapon involved.

I might grab a bottle of windex and shoot the guy with it.

But seriously, I too am surprised that she and Target would take it that far.

Having not seen the exact situation here, I can't say whether I would have helped. But help can be a lot of things like helping her get away from the guy.

[gregthehand]

Be a good witness. If he starts beating her up that's one thing. But until that happens just observe from a distance.

[PappaGun]

It's intersesting that 43% of us said the man should buy on a first date.

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=52485&hilit=date" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

57% said the one who asked for the date should pay first. So split that down the middle (28.5%) for a total of 71.5%.

71.5% would pick up the check but not help this woman who is asking for help.

I dunno, seems disingenuous.

[gregthehand]

It's intersesting that 43% of us said the man should buy on a first date.

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=52485&hilit=date" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

57% said the one who asked for the date should pay first. So split that down the middle (28.5%) for a total of 71.5%.

71.5% would pick up the check but not help this woman who is asking for help.

I dunno, seems disingenuous.

I'd say struggling with a guy over some stolen merchandise is something different all together. She gets paid to do that job. Like I said if she became endangered I'd step in. Until it's her job and I'm letting her do it.

[Jumping Frog]

It's intersesting that 43% of us said the man should buy on a first date.

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=52485&hilit=date" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

57% said the one who asked for the date should pay first. So split that down the middle (28.5%) for a total of 71.5%.

71.5% would pick up the check but not help this woman who is asking for help.

I dunno, seems disingenuous.

Apples and oranges here.

Paying for someone's dinner for a social engagement does not place my financial or physical security at risk.

Intervening in the above situation could place me at risk of lawsuit or getting injured. My first responsibility is protecting my family's well-being -- which includes having the means to support them -- not Target's loss ratio. The woman can always let go of the man and let him take the merchandise.

If he starts beating her, then that is a different scenario, with a different set of risks.

[PappaGun]

Yeah, I know it's not a great comparison.

Some are saying that they would not help unless it got physical.

The way I read it, it did get physical.

And yet the consensus seems to me to be that the best thing to do is to be a good witness.

Still seems disingenuous.

Sounds like she was in over her head and in the wrong job and maybe she's looking for another one.

My wife and I often ask for a given situation if people would be more likely to help if it was a pretty woman in distress or a not so pretty whatever.

If the answer to us veers toward the pretty person we usually see it as a sad commentary.

I'd bet a twenty bucks that more would help in this situation if it was an out matched Giselle.

Of course you'd never see her in a security job. I know...

[RoyGBiv]

Until I started carrying, I would have been the guy that stepped in to help. After considering all the ramifications of getting involved in someone elses business while carrying, I am no longer going to get involved. It's likely that (assuming it was just me and not my family) I would stand discretely nearby and be a witness, or be in a position to offer assistance (again, if I chose to do so given all I now know about the ramifications) should the situation escalate. For example, I might get involved to prevent the LPO from getting her head bashed in if the shoplifter turns the tables on her (maybe).

As has been pointed out already, there are lots of downsides, I am unfamiliar with policy, I have no certainty who has what role when I come upon the unfolding situation already in progress, and the LPO is paid to take the risks.

[speedsix]

It's intersesting that 43% of us said the man should buy on a first date.

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=52485&hilit=date" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

57% said the one who asked for the date should pay first. So split that down the middle (28.5%) for a total of 71.5%.

71.5% would pick up the check but not help this woman who is asking for help.

I dunno, seems disingenuous.

...ask your wife and kids and grandkids if they want their inheritance parceled out to a petty thief in civil court because you jumped in and helped a loss prevention person do a job she evidently wasn't qualified to do, got sued because his neck got out of joint, over a package of lunchmeat...and you'll think we're perfect gentlemen...the lady in the OP's not being beaten to death...her life's not being threatened...she's just looking for help to do her job...and we're busy being good witnesses...pick your battles...

...disingenuous means not candid or frank;insincere...I resent that being applied to us...twice...tell you what...instead of insinuating that or insinuating that how pretty the loss prevention person was would make the difference in our decision...you go save her...and we'll be good witnesses...there's a world of difference between picking up a check and buying a shoplifter his next car...because I want to be in the papers as the guy who saved Target's bologna...I'd rather one person think I was disingenuous than the whole world think I was stupid..

[PappaGun]

...pick your battles...

Of course. I'm getting too old not to.

As I said in my first post I did not see the situation and can not say whether I would have or not.

I am simply surprised at the responses here and how many flat out say they would not help.

[speedsix]

...read the OP's first sentence again...OFTEN an insecure, wannabe hero-type gets a job in loss prevention and BLOWS IT...I paid for my first son standing UNIFORMED security at a grocery store 30 hours a weekend because they'd written a check for over $30,000 to settle a suit where two loss prevention officers had seen a man and woman "acting suspicious"...grabbed them as they left the store, rassled them all over the parking lot...and the two had NOTHING...except a hungry lawyer...and the store said they'd never again use anyone but a professional, uniformed police officer...wasn't worth the liability to do it the other way...
...my son is 18...he got hired at an electonics retail outlet...loss prevention...they did profiles on him to make sure he wasn't the "hero" type and have told him repeatedly...DON'T STOP THEM...if you see them steal on the camera...report it to a manager...DON'T touch them or chase them...I've made sure he understands...life's worth more than a CD...

...it's not a matter of our character...it's a matter of our common sense...

[sugar land dave]

Race and gender have nothing to do with my decision as to whither I would put my health and financial future at risk for the profit of a company with which I have no employment or fiduciary relationship. Little upside with the possibility of a huge downside is not a choice that I would normally make.

This is not a LEO asking for assistance, in which case, I would have a different set of parameters, those of a person helping in an authorized function of government. This, however, is instead a private person contracted to a corporation in an employee relationship. Different set of circumstances when considering my position.

Some say I should consider if it was a pretty girl? Well, what if it was a merchant struggling with a man who had stormed up and overturned display counters at the church store spilling sermon tapes and the register on the floor? What if the man had authority to do so, but I did not know? It is easy to make a decision, but not always so easy to make a good decision.

Matthew 21:12 KJV: And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves.