Mall security and right to physically detain you

[Cedar Park Dad]

I think there are two things going on in this thread. One there is a group of people that seem to have taken the position that no one commenting negatively about receipt would never steal and can't have mistakenly exited without full payment for any and every item. And that may be so but as a standard for business owners it seems a bit pollyanna, An issue that also seems to be missed is that ones behavior, however noble and innocent, cannot give RS to believe that one might be stealing, thus making it not illegal for the store to detain in order to investigate.
Second some people seem to be under the impression that by stopping them the store is committing a crime that then allows them to respond with force. I'm not saying you can't make that legal argument. I am saying that unless it is an extreme case, like you didn't resist and were injured in a significant way or the store employees used drastically excessive force, the likelihood is that by physically resisting you would end up with an assault charge. Sure there are charges like false imprisonment that could apply,but don't bank on it. The real remedy that people get to use isn't violence or criminal but civil. If they stop you, and really stop you not just ask, or even just openly say your a thief then if you can prove it you will end up costing the store money.

Well part of the issue here is that I'm talking about a CHLer here. Not that we're better but that there is the additional issue of a firearm involved.

Unless you pull your gun I don't see the big deal

I can if they try a physical search. Thats going to get very bad very fast.

[EEllis]

I think there are two things going on in this thread. One there is a group of people that seem to have taken the position that no one commenting negatively about receipt would never steal and can't have mistakenly exited without full payment for any and every item. And that may be so but as a standard for business owners it seems a bit pollyanna, An issue that also seems to be missed is that ones behavior, however noble and innocent, cannot give RS to believe that one might be stealing, thus making it not illegal for the store to detain in order to investigate.
Second some people seem to be under the impression that by stopping them the store is committing a crime that then allows them to respond with force. I'm not saying you can't make that legal argument. I am saying that unless it is an extreme case, like you didn't resist and were injured in a significant way or the store employees used drastically excessive force, the likelihood is that by physically resisting you would end up with an assault charge. Sure there are charges like false imprisonment that could apply,but don't bank on it. The real remedy that people get to use isn't violence or criminal but civil. If they stop you, and really stop you not just ask, or even just openly say your a thief then if you can prove it you will end up costing the store money.

Well part of the issue here is that I'm talking about a CHLer here. Not that we're better but that there is the additional issue of a firearm involved.

Unless you pull your gun I don't see the big deal

I can if they try a physical search. Thats going to get very bad very fast.

That will get you a charge guaranteed and without shelling out a boatload of cash you will most likely cop a plea and lose your CHL but go ahead if you just got to prove a point to someone.

[der Teufel]

Well part of the issue here is that I'm talking about a CHLer here. Not that we're better but that there is the additional issue of a firearm involved.

Unless you pull your gun I don't see the big deal

I can if they try a physical search. Thats going to get very bad very fast.

I think you're correct. If Mall Security tries to restrain you and you pull out a gun, I would expect things to get very bad very fast. The question I would expect to hear some time later is "At exactly what point did you begin to feel your life was in danger?"

Some may think I'm giving up my liberty to allow someone to look at my receipt and count items in my basket as I leave. To my thinking, the mall security people have better things to do like go after folks who are really stealing things, and the sooner I convince them I'm not the guy they're after the sooner we can all get about what we should be doing. A physical search of my car, I don't think so. A look at my receipt, not a problem for me. I don't ever see things escalating to a need for attempts at physical restraint in those circumstances.

[jmra]

I think you're correct. If Mall Security tries to restrain you and you pull out a gun, I would expect things to get very bad very fast. The question I would expect to hear some time later is "At exactly what point did you begin to feel your life was in danger?"

Why would he need to fear for his life? You may be forgetting that use of deadly force justification is not required in order to present a handgun. The only thing required is use of force justification. If a loss prevention employee forcibly tried to conduct an obviously involuntary search use of force would be justified. Not that I would do it, but that is the law.

[EEllis]

I think you're correct. If Mall Security tries to restrain you and you pull out a gun, I would expect things to get very bad very fast. The question I would expect to hear some time later is "At exactly what point did you begin to feel your life was in danger?"

Why would he need to fear for his life? You may be forgetting that use of deadly force justification is not required in order to present a handgun. The only thing required is use of force justification. If a loss prevention employee forcibly tried to conduct an obviously involuntary search use of force would be justified. Not that I would do it, but that is the law.

Look you can make a legal argument for use of force without even trying. That being said looking at what really happens when you escalate and use force against store employees, LP, or security you will almost certainly be charged with a crime. You may be able to get a good lawyer and get off, but if the employees had any halfway plausible reason for stopping you then you will charged. If you go over the top and pull your gun, when they are doing nothing but trying to keep you there until cops arrive, then I would expect major charges, significant costs, and if you're lucky you'll have you chl suspended for the year and a half it takes to get your case settled.

Now on the other hand you can stop. Make it clear you are only cooperating under threat of force. Wait for the police. Sue the crap out of them if you are not arrested for theft.

So you can try and make the argument that pulling a gun on a walmart greeter who refuses to let you leave the store when they think you are stealing is legal. If they are detaining you they are allowed to do a terry search which should find your gun. If at that time you try and pull it I would bet the only way you don't get convicted is if the stop and detention was not only unwarranted but egregiously wrong. Not that the employees made a mistake, but that they are running a scam or something. While that could happen and thus give you cause to draw your gun But I can't help be think the likelihood is so low that it's more an intellectual question than a legal one.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I think there are two things going on in this thread. One there is a group of people that seem to have taken the position that no one commenting negatively about receipt would never steal and can't have mistakenly exited without full payment for any and every item. And that may be so but as a standard for business owners it seems a bit pollyanna, An issue that also seems to be missed is that ones behavior, however noble and innocent, cannot give RS to believe that one might be stealing, thus making it not illegal for the store to detain in order to investigate.
Second some people seem to be under the impression that by stopping them the store is committing a crime that then allows them to respond with force. I'm not saying you can't make that legal argument. I am saying that unless it is an extreme case, like you didn't resist and were injured in a significant way or the store employees used drastically excessive force, the likelihood is that by physically resisting you would end up with an assault charge. Sure there are charges like false imprisonment that could apply,but don't bank on it. The real remedy that people get to use isn't violence or criminal but civil. If they stop you, and really stop you not just ask, or even just openly say your a thief then if you can prove it you will end up costing the store money.

you're not getting it. i'm not letting anyone but an LEO touch my cc piece. anything else is asking for a negligent discharge.THATS my point.


Well part of the issue here is that I'm talking about a CHLer here. Not that we're better but that there is the additional issue of a firearm involved.

Unless you pull your gun I don't see the big deal

I can if they try a physical search. Thats going to get very bad very fast.

That will get you a charge guaranteed and without shelling out a boatload of cash you will most likely cop a plea and lose your CHL but go ahead if you just got to prove a point to someone.

[jmra]

I think you're correct. If Mall Security tries to restrain you and you pull out a gun, I would expect things to get very bad very fast. The question I would expect to hear some time later is "At exactly what point did you begin to feel your life was in danger?"

Why would he need to fear for his life? You may be forgetting that use of deadly force justification is not required in order to present a handgun. The only thing required is use of force justification. If a loss prevention employee forcibly tried to conduct an obviously involuntary search use of force would be justified. Not that I would do it, but that is the law.

Look you can make a legal argument for use of force without even trying. That being said looking at what really happens when you escalate and use force against store employees, LP, or security you will almost certainly be charged with a crime. You may be able to get a good lawyer and get off, but if the employees had any halfway plausible reason for stopping you then you will charged. If you go over the top and pull your gun, when they are doing nothing but trying to keep you there until cops arrive, then I would expect major charges, significant costs, and if you're lucky you'll have you chl suspended for the year and a half it takes to get your case settled.

Now on the other hand you can stop. Make it clear you are only cooperating under threat of force. Wait for the police. Sue the crap out of them if you are not arrested for theft.

So you can try and make the argument that pulling a gun on a walmart greeter who refuses to let you leave the store when they think you are stealing is legal. If they are detaining you they are allowed to do a terry search which should find your gun. If at that time you try and pull it I would bet the only way you don't get convicted is if the stop and detention was not only unwarranted but egregiously wrong. Not that the employees made a mistake, but that they are running a scam or something. While that could happen and thus give you cause to draw your gun But I can't help be think the likelihood is so low that it's more an intellectual question than a legal one.

First of all, I would not be the one escalating. That would be the person using force to search me. Secondly, you have yet to produce a link showing the authority of a store employee to conduct an involuntary search.
If it got to the point of me drawing my weapon under justified use of force, the last thing I'll be worried about is lawyer fees. That'll be pocket change compared to the settlement Walmart will be begging me to accept.
ETA: Thirdly, I guess you totally missed where I said, "Not that I would do it".

[EEllis]

First of all, I would not be the one escalating. That would be the person using force to search me. Secondly, you have yet to produce a link showing the authority of a store employee to conduct an involuntary search.
If it got to the point of me drawing my weapon under justified use of force, the last thing I'll be worried about is lawyer fees. That'll be pocket change compared to the settlement Walmart will be begging me to accept.

It's like there is no context in your example. If they stop you and you comply then they should not search you. If they stop you and you don't comply and you use force to resist then it's reasonable that they do a terry search. I get where you might be sure that you would do everything right, but to me the question isn't really so much about you as it is about a general person who might find themselves in such a situation. I guarantee that all those people who smack around the walmart greeters were confident they were in the right. In some situations you could use force. Of course that assumes the store employee must be wrong and and in a big way. Now you may only pull your gun if they are grossly wrong but the post really seems to leave that part out.


You know what forget everything I just wrote. The long and the short is that I think anyone would be in trouble for escalating the situation. If you don't think you would be escalating it then my post doesn't apply. For everyone else the risk hardly seems worth it unless it's some matter of principle. And remember even if you are totally correct in every way your life can still be ruined by such an event.

[jmra]

First of all, I would not be the one escalating. That would be the person using force to search me. Secondly, you have yet to produce a link showing the authority of a store employee to conduct an involuntary search.
If it got to the point of me drawing my weapon under justified use of force, the last thing I'll be worried about is lawyer fees. That'll be pocket change compared to the settlement Walmart will be begging me to accept.

It's like there is no context in your example. If they stop you and you comply then they should not search you. If they stop you and you don't comply and you use force to resist then it's reasonable that they do a terry search. I get where you might be sure that you would do everything right, but to me the question isn't really so much about you as it is about a general person who might find themselves in such a situation. I guarantee that all those people who smack around the walmart greeters were confident they were in the right. In some situations you could use force. Of course that assumes the store employee must be wrong and and in a big way. Now you may only pull your gun if they are grossly wrong but the post really seems to leave that part out.

You keep referring to a search but you have yet to establish that they have that authority. Why is that?
I have never "smacked around" a Walmart greeter. I never been anything other than polite in my "no thank you" response. Your characterization suggesting that anyone who refuses to "comply" is somehow physically or verbally abusive, although predictable, is still offensive.
And of course you have grossly misrepresented my statements. I said that pulling a gun is justified if use of force is justified. That is the law. And please tell when I said I would initiate the use of force. Never said that. The only time I would ever use force is if use of force was legally justified.

ETA: You must have typed your last paragraph as I was posting my response. I will gladly forget everything you said.

[EEllis]

You keep referring to a search but you have yet to establish that they have that authority. Why is that?
I have never "smacked around" a Walmart greeter. I never been anything other than polite in my "no thank you" response. Your characterization suggesting that anyone who refuses to "comply" is somehow physically or verbally abusive, although predictable, is still offensive.
And of course you have grossly misrepresented my statements. I said that pulling a gun is justified if use of force is justified. That is the law.

I don't have to establish anything. Look this isn't a personal attack on you. It was a discussion about store employees and legal issues involved with them stopping people. That you would never do anything to warrant any action and would always do everything right is great but hardly conducive to the discussion if every example and statement has to be about you. You can continue to make it about you. I will stop responding to any statement on this thread from you even when they are in response to my posts so we can eliminate the issue of me doing and saying anything about you. Because to me it never was about you.

[jmra]

You keep referring to a search but you have yet to establish that they have that authority. Why is that?
I have never "smacked around" a Walmart greeter. I never been anything other than polite in my "no thank you" response. Your characterization suggesting that anyone who refuses to "comply" is somehow physically or verbally abusive, although predictable, is still offensive.
And of course you have grossly misrepresented my statements. I said that pulling a gun is justified if use of force is justified. That is the law.

I don't have to establish anything. Look this isn't a personal attack on you. It was a discussion about store employees and legal issues involved with them stopping people. That you would never do anything to warrant any action and would always do everything right is great but hardly conducive to the discussion if every example and statement has to be about you. You can continue to make it about you. I will stop responding to any statement on this thread from you even when they are in response to my posts so we can eliminate the issue of me doing and saying anything about you. Because to me it never was about you.

That's fine with me as I wasn't responding to your post in the first place. I was responding to der teufel. If you don't want it to be "about me" then stop using the word "you" when responding.
BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

[EEllis]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

[jmra]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

I have no clue what you are talking about. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall any reference in this thread to handcuffs. Every post I've submitted in this thread has been in response to employees stopping every customer leaving the store wanting to see receipts and the consequences of not complying with that request. I have even stated numerous times that it is a completely different situation if they see you commit a crime and involve police. But this whole discussion has been about what happens when they push the issue simply because and only because you (I'll say "you" since this is not about "me") declined the request to see your receipt. In fact, that is exactly what was happening in the video you posted where the LEO let the guy go because there was no evidence a crime had been committed. Granted, this does not address the title of the thread, but that boat sailed a long time ago.

[EEllis]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

I have no clue what you are talking about. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall any reference in this thread to handcuffs. Every post I've submitted in this thread has been in response to employees stopping every customer leaving the store wanting to see receipts and the consequences of not complying with that request. I have even stated numerous times that it is a completely different situation if they see you commit a crime and involve police. But this whole discussion has been about what happens when they push the issue simply because and only because you (I'll say "you" since this is not about "me") declined the request to see your receipt. Granted, this does not address the title of the thread, but that boat sailed a long time ago.

I'm talking about my posts and what I said, but it's moot so........

[jmra]

BTW, I knew you wouldn't provide the link. That was never in question. I, on the other hand, have provided several links in this thread to professionals in the field stating that store employees do not have the authority to conduct involuntary searches.

Wait all my references to searches were after being detained. I even specifically said that they should only search after force was used to detain. So if they actually handcuff someone you still think it is somehow unacceptable for them to do a terry search? Under what law do you think they would ever be prosecuted for that? For an illegal detention maybe, but for a Terry search?

I have no clue what you are talking about. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall any reference in this thread to handcuffs. Every post I've submitted in this thread has been in response to employees stopping every customer leaving the store wanting to see receipts and the consequences of not complying with that request. I have even stated numerous times that it is a completely different situation if they see you commit a crime and involve police. But this whole discussion has been about what happens when they push the issue simply because and only because you (I'll say "you" since this is not about "me") declined the request to see your receipt. Granted, this does not address the title of the thread, but that boat sailed a long time ago.

I'm talking about my posts and what I said, but it's moot so........

My responses were all related to the Walmart scenarios (that's where I entered the conversation). I will say that anyone wearing a badge/handcuffs will have my full attention. That being said, in my 48 years I have had numerous dealings with LEO, mall cops, and military police. Other than entering "the egg" at missile silos, I have never been searched, handcuffed, or detained by any of them (at least no longer than it takes to write a well deserved speeding ticket I got 32 years ago) even though I stood my ground and refused to relinquish my rights. I don't see any senerio where a non LEO is going to put me in handcuffs without me winding up with a very nice settlement check.
I will admit that I bought some merchandise from a store this afternoon and because I chose to re-enter the store to meet my family instead of leaving through the closest exit, I approached the employee next to the exit and volunteered my receipt. Had I purchased the merchandise at the register closest to the exit I simply would have walked right past him. Funny thing was two other people did exactly that and all three of us exited the same time. Alarms went off which apperently didn't even register with the employees. All three of us continued walking.