Page 17 of 19
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:19 pm
by Cedar Park Dad
EEllis wrote: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.
So now you're claiming an LP can effect a search and attempt to disarm you. Ok no thats clearly battery on a person.
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:23 pm
by KD5NRH
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.
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:29 am
by EEllis
Cedar Park Dad wrote:
So now you're claiming an LP can effect a search and attempt to disarm you. Ok no thats clearly battery on a person.
Do we really have to keep going over the same thing? No they can't just stop random people but they can stop you if they do so to prevent theft and their actions are "reasonable". There are some examples in the thread of what courts have found reasonable. One was a guy going into HEB with a bag unseen by security. He then left with the bag he came in with and set off the inventory control alarm. He was stopped and held while the store investigated. They found that he didn't have anything of the stores and let him go. He sued and had his case dismissed because his detention was found to be legal. You see that they stopped, held, and searched him right? Yep legal, at least in the correct circumstances.
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:18 am
by Cedar Park Dad
EEllis wrote:Cedar Park Dad wrote:
So now you're claiming an LP can effect a search and attempt to disarm you. Ok no thats clearly battery on a person.
Do we really have to keep going over the same thing? No they can't just stop random people but they can stop you if they do so to prevent theft and their actions are "reasonable". There are some examples in the thread of what courts have found reasonable. One was a guy going into HEB with a bag unseen by security. He then left with the bag he came in with and set off the inventory control alarm. He was stopped and held while the store investigated. They found that he didn't have anything of the stores and let him go. He sued and had his case dismissed because his detention was found to be legal. You see that they stopped, held, and searched him right? Yep legal, at least in the correct circumstances.
Stopping is not searching. You do realize that right?
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:30 am
by E.Marquez
Cedar Park Dad wrote:EEllis wrote:Cedar Park Dad wrote:
So now you're claiming an LP can effect a search and attempt to disarm you. Ok no thats clearly battery on a person.
Do we really have to keep going over the same thing? No they can't just stop random people but they can stop you if they do so to prevent theft and their actions are "reasonable". There are some examples in the thread of what courts have found reasonable. One was a guy going into HEB with a bag unseen by security. He then left with the bag he came in with and set off the inventory control alarm. He was stopped and held while the store investigated. They found that he didn't have anything of the stores and let him go. He sued and had his case dismissed because his detention was found to be legal. You see that they stopped, held, and searched him right? Yep legal, at least in the correct circumstances.
Stopping is not searching. You do realize that right?
Nor is it disarming, assaulting or any of the other nonsense some keep dreaming up can, might, could happen to a citizen that is mistakenly stopped, and requests law enforcement be called.
Stopped yes, of course, and if stopped then Law enforcement is called (Id be the one calling), while "suspect" is "detained", LP is, will , should be satisfied at that point, job well done.
Then we have a few folks standing around glaring at each other or smiling and chatting..until LEO arrives, 90 sec later and depending on how the LP handled the situation, all walk away happy, or not.
Show me a single case where an innocent person (like one of us would be, you know the demographic group we have been talking about ) was mistakenly suspected of shop lifting, stopped by LP because they were "reasonably" sure that bulge under a shirt was store property, tackled, disarmed, searched against his will by LP, and the courts supported that under "Shop Keepers Privilege"
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:40 am
by Cedar Park Dad
E.Marquez wrote:Show me a single case where an innocent person (like one of us would be, you know the demographic group we have been talking about ) was mistakenly suspected of shop lifting, stopped by LP becuase there were "reasonably" sure that bulge under a short was store property, tackled, disarmed, searched against his will by LP, and the courts supported that under "Shop Keepers Privilege"
Indeed. I can see the legality of a stop, but nothing else. Police are specifically permitted to search and/or disarm under limited circumstances. This has not yet been shown to be the case under law for nonLEOs.
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:46 am
by EEllis
E.Marquez wrote:Cedar Park Dad wrote:EEllis wrote:Cedar Park Dad wrote:
So now you're claiming an LP can effect a search and attempt to disarm you. Ok no thats clearly battery on a person.
Do we really have to keep going over the same thing? No they can't just stop random people but they can stop you if they do so to prevent theft and their actions are "reasonable". There are some examples in the thread of what courts have found reasonable. One was a guy going into HEB with a bag unseen by security. He then left with the bag he came in with and set off the inventory control alarm. He was stopped and held while the store investigated. They found that he didn't have anything of the stores and let him go. He sued and had his case dismissed because his detention was found to be legal. You see that they stopped, held, and searched him right? Yep legal, at least in the correct circumstances.
Stopping is not searching. You do realize that right?
Nor is it disarming, assaulting or any of the other nonsense some keep dreaming up can, might, could happen to a citizen that is mistakenly stopped, and requests law enforcement be called.
Stopped yes, of course, and if stopped then Law enforcement is called (Id be the one calling), while "suspect" is "detained", LP is, will , should be satisfied at that point, job well done.
Then we have a few folks standing around glaring at each other or smiling and chatting..until LEO arrives, 90 sec later and depending on how the LP handled the situation, all walk away happy, or not.
Show me a single case where an innocent person (like one of us would be, you know the demographic group we have been talking about ) was mistakenly suspected of shop lifting, stopped by LP because they were "reasonably" sure that bulge under a shirt was store property, tackled, disarmed, searched against his will by LP, and the courts supported that under "Shop Keepers Privilege"
You're setting up a make believe scenario and saying if I can't find the exact same real case then my statements are incorrect. That isn't how it works. I think you have it right how you think it should go down but what if instead of staying someone tries to leave and resists or even attacks the employees? At that time a merchant can use force to stop someone. If they do and LP end up handcuffing someone, which does happen, then what? So far everything is nice and legal but somehow a pat down crosses some make believe line?
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:32 am
by ralewis
EEllis wrote:E.Marquez wrote:Cedar Park Dad wrote:EEllis wrote:Cedar Park Dad wrote:
So now you're claiming an LP can effect a search and attempt to disarm you. Ok no thats clearly battery on a person.
Do we really have to keep going over the same thing? No they can't just stop random people but they can stop you if they do so to prevent theft and their actions are "reasonable". There are some examples in the thread of what courts have found reasonable. One was a guy going into HEB with a bag unseen by security. He then left with the bag he came in with and set off the inventory control alarm. He was stopped and held while the store investigated. They found that he didn't have anything of the stores and let him go. He sued and had his case dismissed because his detention was found to be legal. You see that they stopped, held, and searched him right? Yep legal, at least in the correct circumstances.
Stopping is not searching. You do realize that right?
Nor is it disarming, assaulting or any of the other nonsense some keep dreaming up can, might, could happen to a citizen that is mistakenly stopped, and requests law enforcement be called.
Stopped yes, of course, and if stopped then Law enforcement is called (Id be the one calling), while "suspect" is "detained", LP is, will , should be satisfied at that point, job well done.
Then we have a few folks standing around glaring at each other or smiling and chatting..until LEO arrives, 90 sec later and depending on how the LP handled the situation, all walk away happy, or not.
Show me a single case where an innocent person (like one of us would be, you know the demographic group we have been talking about ) was mistakenly suspected of shop lifting, stopped by LP because they were "reasonably" sure that bulge under a shirt was store property, tackled, disarmed, searched against his will by LP, and the courts supported that under "Shop Keepers Privilege"
You're setting up a make believe scenario and saying if I can't find the exact same real case then my statements are incorrect. That isn't how it works. I think you have it right how you think it should go down but what if instead of staying someone tries to leave and resists or even attacks the employees? At that time a merchant can use force to stop someone. If they do and LP end up handcuffing someone, which does happen, then what? So far everything is nice and legal but somehow a pat down crosses some make believe line?
Yes. I think a pat down crosses the line. I would strenuously object to a pat down or search and demand law enforcement be called. Seems that unless you see a badge, the approach ought to be to treat any physical contact as a possible assault and evaluate your options accordingly.
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:44 am
by mojo84
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:15 am
by Glockster
Some interesting discussion but after 17 pages I find myself wondering what an attorney might have to say, unless I've misunderstood and some of those offering their opinions are in fact attorneys.
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:37 am
by E.Marquez
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:44 am
by anygunanywhere
Store owner must have read this thread.
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:48 am
by mojo84
anygunanywhere wrote:
Store owner must have read this thread.
Bad idea to take legal advice from an interweb forum, huh? I think that storekeeper overstepped his privilege and is in deep doo if the article is accurate.
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:01 pm
by RogueUSMC
didn't they say the store owners were Asian??
Re: Mall security and right to physically detain you
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:36 pm
by Abraham
Achtung!
These folks don't realize that Shop Keepers Privileges allow them to be detained/strip searched/interrogated/ and generally mistreated in any manner the shop keeper so desires or so we've been informed...oh, and it doesnt matter if they're innocent.
Innocence has nothing to do with what S.K.P. allows.
"Sieg heil!"
