TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote: What keeps them from doing one?

Me. Saying "don't touch me". Removing the hands. That's not happening. Indicating I'm happy to wait for law enforcement.

A LEO can do it, based on the report of a security guard suspecting something, that's fine... Unjust, maybe, but that's what I'd do as a LEO based on a one-sided report. I'll deal with that minor indignity. We'll work that out afterwards.

Would I escalate that to shooting someone if a non-LEO got insistent? No.. That's not worth it on my end and it's not the appropriate penalty for the crime. Can they do it effectively - I suppose so if they were that physically capable and willing...

Big difference between being authorized to use force, like a LEO, where courts have indicated that the amount of force allowed to affect an arrest is almost without limit AND that of a shopkeeper where "reasonable" force is authorized. That is, if I'm not leaving, it's not reasonable to handcuff me or proceed beyond blocking my exit... I'm not going to necessarily escalate in the face of a minor injustice...

cb1000rider wrote:

EEllis wrote: What keeps them from doing one?

Me. Saying "don't touch me". Removing the hands. That's not happening. Indicating I'm happy to wait for law enforcement.

A LEO can do it, based on the report of a security guard suspecting something, that's fine... Unjust, maybe, but that's what I'd do as a LEO based on a one-sided report. I'll deal with that minor indignity. We'll work that out afterwards.

Would I escalate that to shooting someone if a non-LEO got insistent? No.. That's not worth it on my end and it's not the appropriate penalty for the crime. Can they do it effectively - I suppose so if they were that physically capable and willing...

Big difference between being authorized to use force, like a LEO, where courts have indicated that the amount of force allowed to affect an arrest is almost without limit AND that of a shopkeeper where "reasonable" force is authorized. That is, if I'm not leaving, it's not reasonable to handcuff me or proceed beyond blocking my exit... I'm not going to necessarily escalate in the face of a minor injustice...

I think if you read my post I have indicated my agreement with most of what you say. Now my comment was just about a terry search after an cuffing someone and I believe I indicated they should only cuff when nessasary due to violent resistance. It should go without saying that they also better darn well be correct in their assumption of theft. So I don't see any contradiction in what we both have stated.

EEllis wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: 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?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

What keeps them from doing one?

Unless its legal, its assault, thats potentially what.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: 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?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

What keeps them from doing one?

Unless its legal, its assault, thats potentially what.

Well sure if they just grab random people it's assault but that is assault if a police officer does it also. I was talking about a merchant or agent operating in good faith. If I'm doing the heimlich on someone who's choking then I'm a hero. If I just grab a random person and do it then that's assault.

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: 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?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

What keeps them from doing one?

Unless its legal, its assault, thats potentially what.

Well sure if they just grab random people it's assault but that is assault if a police officer does it also. I was talking about a merchant or agent operating in good faith. If I'm doing the heimlich on someone who's choking then I'm a hero. If I just grab a random person and do it then that's assault.

I'm talking about a merchant as well, actually anyone. I will guarantee a lawsuit from a very excellent firm the moment you attempt to lay hands on me or my family to the level I will own your store.

I may or may not comply with a polite request. It's entirely my prerogative and I have no obligation either way.

If they choose to physically assault me, that won't end well for them. One way or another.

I don't know why there's even a debate about this.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: 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?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

What keeps them from doing one?

Unless its legal, its assault, thats potentially what.

Well sure if they just grab random people it's assault but that is assault if a police officer does it also. I was talking about a merchant or agent operating in good faith. If I'm doing the heimlich on someone who's choking then I'm a hero. If I just grab a random person and do it then that's assault.

I'm talking about a merchant as well, actually anyone. I will guarantee a lawsuit from a very excellent firm the moment you attempt to lay hands on me or my family to the level I will own your store.

Seriously? I think Wal-Mart can trump any law firm you could possibly hire. Not only that but they have the power to drag it long enough to bankrupt you if they so desire. Personally I think anyone escalating a situation over showing a recept isn't being a good embasador for the CHL community.

LP folks have a job to do just like most of us have during the week. To me if they insist on seeing a recept I will comply to de-escalate the situation. It doesn't hurt me one way or another and is a few seconds of inconvenience at most.

Right2Carry wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: 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?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

What keeps them from doing one?

Unless its legal, its assault, thats potentially what.

Well sure if they just grab random people it's assault but that is assault if a police officer does it also. I was talking about a merchant or agent operating in good faith. If I'm doing the heimlich on someone who's choking then I'm a hero. If I just grab a random person and do it then that's assault.

I'm talking about a merchant as well, actually anyone. I will guarantee a lawsuit from a very excellent firm the moment you attempt to lay hands on me or my family to the level I will own your store.

Seriously? I think Wal-Mart can trump any law firm you could possibly hire. Not only that but they have the power to drag it long enough to bankrupt you if they so desire. Personally I think anyone escalating a situation over showing a recept isn't being a good embasador for the CHL community.

LP folks have a job to do just like most of us have during the week. To me if they insist on seeing a recept I will comply to de-escalate the situation. It doesn't hurt me one way or another and is a few seconds of inconvenience at most.

I'm not talking about showing a receipt. I could care less about that. I'm talking about a non-LEO attempting to search me or one of my family. You're following the wrong discussion.

Interestingly when I was at SAM's in ancient times one of my jobs was that.They never told us what to do if someone actually had a a major difference between their items and the receipt. Also interestingly, we had sheriff deputies. We were never to get involved with shoplifters in any manner.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: 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?

Also, since when do non-LEO store employees have the power to do a Terry search?

What keeps them from doing one?

Unless its legal, its assault, thats potentially what.

Well sure if they just grab random people it's assault but that is assault if a police officer does it also. I was talking about a merchant or agent operating in good faith. If I'm doing the heimlich on someone who's choking then I'm a hero. If I just grab a random person and do it then that's assault.

I'm talking about a merchant as well, actually anyone. I will guarantee a lawsuit from a very excellent firm the moment you attempt to lay hands on me or my family to the level I will own your store.

Seriously? I think Wal-Mart can trump any law firm you could possibly hire. Not only that but they have the power to drag it long enough to bankrupt you if they so desire. Personally I think anyone escalating a situation over showing a recept isn't being a good embasador for the CHL community.

LP folks have a job to do just like most of us have during the week. To me if they insist on seeing a recept I will comply to de-escalate the situation. It doesn't hurt me one way or another and is a few seconds of inconvenience at most.

I'm not talking about showing a receipt. I could care less about that. I'm talking about a non-LEO attempting to search me or one of my family. You're following the wrong discussion.

Interestingly when I was at SAM's in ancient times one of my jobs was that.They never told us what to do if someone actually had a a major difference between their items and the receipt. Also interestingly, we had sheriff deputies. We were never to get involved with shoplifters in any manner.

Why would LP touch anyone who could prove they own the merchandise by showing a receipt? I believe LP would only touch someone if they failed to comply with a request to prove the merchandise belonged to them. Seems this is the question that was asked in the beginning and is the scenario that would most likely result in store or LP personnel going hands on. I view not showing a receipt when politely asked as an escalation. That's just my opinion.

Cedar Park Dad wrote: I'm talking about a merchant as well, actually anyone. I will guarantee a lawsuit from a very excellent firm the moment you attempt to lay hands on me or my family to the level I will own your store.

I don't know why this discussion keeps going on. Sure you would never steal or even forget to pay for something so the merchant would never want to lay hands on you. Great! That doesn't stop the merchant from have the legal ability to lay hands on someone who is stealing. That you wouldn't and would sue if they acted like you would doesn't change anything. Good grief people!

I just reread your post. My comments about searches were only about terry searches after being handcuffed. So the big thing to you isn't the handcuffs but that you or your family were terry searched after being caught stealing? Because that is the only scenario I have been discussing involving searches. I think at that point a terry search would be the smallest of you problems.

please cite the legal code where a non LEO merchant may legally search you.

Here's some info with cites to case references. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mojo84 wrote:Here's some info with cites to case references. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry that is wiki not law, on detaining, nothing about searching. Nice read just the same.

edit
sorry found this "The shopkeeper's privilege does not include the power of search.[8]" But still not legal code.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:please cite the legal code where a non LEO merchant may legally search you.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it ... 79722.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right2Carry wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:please cite the legal code where a non LEO merchant may legally search you.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it ... 79722.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2 lawyers give legal opinion, but not a lick of legal code, 1 lawyer is not even from Tx.