Abraham wrote:"Otherwise you can be held, charged, found guilty, of assault even if you never took anything."
For defending yourself when innocent of any wrongdoing?
Yeah, sure...
So, you think the merchant can employ "police state tactics" because even when it's discovered that you the customer were found not guilty, the merchant can with impunity assault you anyway because the merchant has carte blanche to assault you without recourse? The merchant has overarching/special police powers according to you.
Baloney!
When the police falsely arrest and detain innocent people, are you aware of the large sums awarded when sued by the innocent?
Merchants aren't exempt from this action taken by the innocent...
Well yes they can be found exempt. The issue is if the courts find the response of the merchant to be reasonable. The shopkeepers privilege doesn't have anything to due with someone being guilty of theft. It's based on the merchants actions and guilt is specifically not supposed to matter. If the actions are reasonable then someone can sue but they will loose the case. Maybe a store might settle but the law says if the actions are reasonable the merchant cannot be held liable. False arrest is an arrest without basis not an arrest of an innocent person. There is a different and we are not talking about cops but merchants. Apples and oranges.
cb1000rider wrote:
They're justified to detain you by reasonable means, which might include grabbing you or grabbing a purse that has a weapon in it.
I'm curious just how much force a store employee (i.e. "loss prevention") CAN use in trying to detain you, beyond grabbing your arm. Can they wrestle you to the floor? Put you in a hold? Spray you with pepper spray? How much can you "resist" without being charged with something? I, for one, have NO intention of EVER stealing anything from a store, and if some wannabe cop suddenly started roughing me up, I would have a very difficult time just standing there helplessly. What could be the consequences if I broke his nose?
cb1000rider wrote:
They're justified to detain you by reasonable means, which might include grabbing you or grabbing a purse that has a weapon in it.
I'm curious just how much force a store employee (i.e. "loss prevention") CAN use in trying to detain you, beyond grabbing your arm. Can they wrestle you to the floor? Put you in a hold? Spray you with pepper spray? How much can you "resist" without being charged with something? I, for one, have NO intention of EVER stealing anything from a store, and if some wannabe cop suddenly started roughing me up, I would have a very difficult time just standing there helplessly. What could be the consequences if I broke his nose?
They can use just about any amount of force but it's usually judged against the actions of the person being stopped. If they tackle granny then they are screwed but if you push past one guy then they dog pile you it would be fine. The force is judged within the context of the incident. That why people making blanket statements get so worked up. Yes they can do X Y or Z but not all or every time, just when it's reasonable due to the actions of the person they are detaining.
cb1000rider wrote:
They're justified to detain you by reasonable means, which might include grabbing you or grabbing a purse that has a weapon in it.
I'm curious just how much force a store employee (i.e. "loss prevention") CAN use in trying to detain you, beyond grabbing your arm. Can they wrestle you to the floor? Put you in a hold? Spray you with pepper spray? How much can you "resist" without being charged with something? I, for one, have NO intention of EVER stealing anything from a store, and if some wannabe cop suddenly started roughing me up, I would have a very difficult time just standing there helplessly. What could be the consequences if I broke his nose?
They can use just about any amount of force but it's usually judged against the actions of the person being stopped. If they tackle granny then they are screwed but if you push past one guy then they dog pile you it would be fine. The force is judged within the context of the incident. That why people making blanket statements get so worked up. Yes they can do X Y or Z but not all or every time, just when it's reasonable due to the actions of the person they are detaining.
Yep, store LP guys have all the liberties of "Bounty Hunters" and none on the constraints of LEO officers...
PPppppppfffffttttt!
LP guys wrestle some innocent individual to the floor, because they THOUGHT him guilty of shop lifting, rough him up in the process, perhaps even injure him, to find he's done nothing wrong.
The innocent individual is just supposed to suck it up and go on about his business cuz the LP (Gestapo) tactics have all the power without consequences even when in the wrong.
Baloney!!
However, some believe this scenario perfectly reasonable and something to expect will happen occasionally, cuz them's just the breaks without recourse or remedy, cuz LP folks are beyond the law.
Please, where do these bizarre ideas come from?
Anarchists R Us?
Or, stores, your all powerful shadow government...?
Next, on your silly, dream land ideas: How to walk into a bank and demand cash without having an account.
I've seen this thread and have tried hard to ignore it. However, I'll share my personal experience for what its worth.
In the early 70's when I was about 9 or so, my mom took me to the 8th St. Army Surplus store in Odessa, TX where she purchased a woven military belt and a military canteen that hangs from the belt.
She had more shopping to do and we then went to Gibson's Discount Store on W. County Rd. She went and did her shopping and I went straight to the sporting goods section. I spent some time looking around there and found some of the same type of old military belts and canteens. To my delight, they also had the long black machete with the sheath that was design to fit on the belt. Once confirming the sheath fit the belt she just purchased for me at the army surplus store across town and that I was proudly wearing, I promptly took the machete and sheath and tracked my mom down in the store to ask her to purchase it for me. She agreed.
About half way between the register and door, a man came up and grabbed me by my arm and asked if I had forgotten to pay for something. Scared to death I said no sir. He responded that he thinks I did. My mom asked what was going on. The man told her we had to go with him. He then turned wallking while pulling me along. My mom immediately began to protest and demand an explanation. He took us to a small office with a tabke and three or four chairs and told us we had to stay in there until the police arrived. He and the manager then stepped out leaving me and my mom in there. She checked the door and it was unlocked. I was crying. She consoled me and told me let's go. When she tried the door again, it was locked. After so.e time, seemed like hours, a police office entered the room along with the manager and loss control thug. The police officer began asking me questions. I still did not realize what they thought I had stolen. Finally, my mom clued in that they thought I had stolen the belt. She then went off on them like I had never seen before. After a serious tongue lashing she whipped out the receipt from the 8th Street Army store and showed them where she had paid for the belt.
The officer turned to the loss control thug, a man of Mexican heritage that was now as white as a sheet, and asked him if he had actually seen me put the belt on in the store. The loss control thug said he did not but said he saw me leave the sporting goods section with it on and followed me until he approached me near the door. The officer then asked him if I had actually left the store with it before he approached me. He said he did not.
The officer then turned to the manager and loss control thug and scolded them sternly for their poor handling of the situation. He then told the manager and loss control thug in no uncertain terms, you guys screwed up and are in deep stuff (not his exact word). The manager apologized profusely and the officer advised us we are free to go.
We thought that was the end of it. However, several months of nightmares about me having to go to prison for stealing and my refusal to go back into that store, my mom consulted an attorney she knew. We sued them. Gibson's put up a bit of a fight. It went to a bench trial that took all of an hour or so. The judge asked me what happened. The defendant didn't cross examine me. The judge asked my mom if what I said is what happened. She confirmed it was. The judge confirmed we were suing for $2500. He then turned to the defendant and told them he finds for the plaintiff and ordered them to pay the $2500 and provide me with a formal apology in front of the court with a follow up written apology.
The attorney took $500 of the $2500 and my mom opened an bank account for me with the remainder. Some of the money went to a counselor I saw a few times and the rest got frittered away.
There are the facts of an actual case of what is being argues over here. This was a long time ago and I'm sure things have changed. Arguing over hypotheticals can be fun. However, there are so many individual details in any particular scenario, you won't get it right for all scenarios.
Shopkeepers have certain legal rights. However they do not have carte blanc to do whatever they want however they want. They also need to be sure they are right before accusing someone of shoplifting or detaining them.
Edit: Sorry so long. I was typing on my phone and was trying to be as specific as possible.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Everything is subjective or they wouldn't have courts. Here is the deal and make of it what you will. The law in Texas says that if the merchants actions were reasonable then they cannot be held liable, that includes civilly. By law the decision of reasonability should not be affected by the actual guilt of the person involved but measured by the merchants actions only. That doesn't mean you can't sue or if you do they won't settle. If however it goes to court and a judge or jury decides that regardless of guilt the actions were reasonable then the merchant will not and cannot be held liable.
And by the way in theory it would go both ways. If you are found to have taken something but the merchant over does it, the big case was a store catching someone and holding them without letting them have water, then they can be held liable even if you are guilty.
And just to prove it here is a link to a page listing a appeals case where a claim of false imprisonment was denied by the appeals court. http://causeofactionelements.blogspot.c ... epers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cruz and the other HEB employees had a reasonable basis for believing that [Plaitniff] was attempting to steal store merchandise. The shopkeeper's privilege does not require that the person detaining another confirm or refute the detainee's claims regarding the merchandise, nor does it prevent the suspected shoplifter from being held for a reasonable time in order to deliver him to the police. Resendez, 962 S.W.2d at 540; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 124.001; Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 18.16 (granting to any person privilege to detain person suspected of theft and deliver them to peace officer).
So go tell the appeals court how they got it wrong. Me? I'm just telling people the legal precedent not what I "think" it should be.
EEllis wrote:And just to prove it here is a link to a page listing a appeals case where a claim of false imprisonment was denied by the appeals court. http://causeofactionelements.blogspot.c ... epers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cruz and the other HEB employees had a reasonable basis for believing that [Plaitniff] was attempting to steal store merchandise. The shopkeeper's privilege does not require that the person detaining another confirm or refute the detainee's claims regarding the merchandise, nor does it prevent the suspected shoplifter from being held for a reasonable time in order to deliver him to the police. Resendez, 962 S.W.2d at 540; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 124.001; Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 18.16 (granting to any person privilege to detain person suspected of theft and deliver them to peace officer).
So go tell the appeals court how they got it wrong. Me? I'm just telling people the legal precedent not what I "think" it should be.
No place in that court decision does it support what your poorly attempting to claim.
NEXT
Companion animal Microchips, quality name brand chips, lifetime registration, Low cost just $10~12, not for profit, most locations we can come to you. We cover eight counties McLennan, Hill, Bell, Coryell, Falls, Bosque, Limestone, Lampasas
Contact we.chip.pets@gmail.com
EEllis wrote:And just to prove it here is a link to a page listing a appeals case where a claim of false imprisonment was denied by the appeals court. http://causeofactionelements.blogspot.c ... epers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cruz and the other HEB employees had a reasonable basis for believing that [Plaitniff] was attempting to steal store merchandise. The shopkeeper's privilege does not require that the person detaining another confirm or refute the detainee's claims regarding the merchandise, nor does it prevent the suspected shoplifter from being held for a reasonable time in order to deliver him to the police. Resendez, 962 S.W.2d at 540; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 124.001; Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 18.16 (granting to any person privilege to detain person suspected of theft and deliver them to peace officer).
So go tell the appeals court how they got it wrong. Me? I'm just telling people the legal precedent not what I "think" it should be.
No place in that court decision does it support what your poorly attempting to claim.
NEXT
What that shopkeepers privilege is about the reasonability of the action not guilt? Yes it does, right there in bold. Here is another case. http://www.swlearning.com/blaw/cases/re ... ntion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This kind of situation rattles me. I do not shoplift, as I'm sure can be said of virtually anyone interested in or currently holding a CHL (mine's in the works).
Bad things can happen with a little momentary lapse, though. Once I got to my car and realized the 24 pack of water on the bottom shelf of the grocery cart hadn't been scanned at the cash register. Of course, I skedaddled back in, explained my oversight, and paid for what I got.
What if I were carrying, and what if a loss guy had decided to make an example of me?
If he bumped into me he might find a perfectly concealed handgun. I would not want to hand a loaded gun to someone I didn't know. I'll comply with whatever a police officer requests, but even then there's a risk. Guns don't generally get into trouble when they stay in the leather.
For the loss prevention folks, I think the best is be polite and calm. If the situation doesn't resolve itself with a chuckle, call 911. If I'm being manhandled and can't use my own cell phone, I'd scream bloody murder for someone to call 911, and I'd try to protect my gun from potentially untrained hands without drawing it.
In matters of mere embarrassment and not fear of my life I would never suggest the use or threat of force. But what if I have a case of water I stupidly forgot to pay for, and some guy is coming after me with a baseball bat?
treadlightly wrote:This kind of situation rattles me. I do not shoplift, as I'm sure can be said of virtually anyone interested in or currently holding a CHL (mine's in the works).
Bad things can happen with a little momentary lapse, though. Once I got to my car and realized the 24 pack of water on the bottom shelf of the grocery cart hadn't been scanned at the cash register. Of course, I skedaddled back in, explained my oversight, and paid for what I got.
What if I were carrying, and what if a loss guy had decided to make an example of me?
If he bumped into me he might find a perfectly concealed handgun. I would not want to hand a loaded gun to someone I didn't know. I'll comply with whatever a police officer requests, but even then there's a risk. Guns don't generally get into trouble when they stay in the leather.
For the loss prevention folks, I think the best is be polite and calm. If the situation doesn't resolve itself with a chuckle, call 911. If I'm being manhandled and can't use my own cell phone, I'd scream bloody murder for someone to call 911, and I'd try to protect my gun from potentially untrained hands without drawing it.
In matters of mere embarrassment and not fear of my life I would never suggest the use or threat of force. But what if I have a case of water I stupidly forgot to pay for, and some guy is coming after me with a baseball bat?
A terrible conundrum I hope never to face.
If they come at you with a bat before even talking to you it's obviously going to an unreasonable action and as such wouldn't have the protection of shopkeepers privilege. Heck to be reasonable they would almost have to ask you first, in my opinion anyway, to stop before they could use force. But to address your initial statement, legally speaking your concern has no legal bearing on what a merchant can legally do. Trying to MAKE someone comply when you are in a custodial situation is, in my opinion, a bad idea. Mind you putting cuffs on a person who stops and indicates that he will wait for the cops would be risky for an LP, security, merchant, what have you. I would be shocked if it happened without something else being involved. 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? I mean if they did it illegally they should be screwed no matter what so lets just assume it was legal and they had good cause to restrain you. How could they do anything but disarm someone at that point in time? Not to do so would be negligent in my opinion.
