TexasCHLforum.com

AlphaBeta wrote:A few things: I didn't know I set off the alarm system as it was delayed to the point I was out the door and didn't hear anything but my wife calling my name. Nor did I know who was saying to stop let me look in your bag until I turned around and told the SO to leave me alone. What I do know was this guy watched me walk from the registers to the door and out the door. The reason I know that is because I saw him near the door. We aren't talking best I can tell as it was my first and last time in that store that the sensor is either too close to the door or that delayed or someone else set it off. Normally I hear them go off from time to time.

The tag is one of those cheesy ones that they put on the CD covers little white strip. Not like the cable lock ones or the ones they put on clothes. PD didn't judge he was or was not within his rights to detain only that they thought he may have and sent it to homicide to investigate. The officer said my not stopping may have given a reasonable doubt.

EElis did you read my posts showing of the reasonable belief. Those cases were both Texas Appeals cases and both supported it takes a little more to prove that in my opinion. If he didn't have the reasonable belief to pursue me outside to begin with then my actions of continuing on to my car can't give rise to prove a suspicion he never had. I am assuming not a lot when the guy told me to let him see in my bag. That was not a third party that was me hearing it. No assumption there. I do assume that the alarm went off based on third party telling me it did, not because I heard it. Furthermore I theartend violence in response to it being threatened to me. Also the cases I could find for the security devices going off had where employees watched them steal stuff and found stolen items after passing all points of payment.

And with that I will drop it at that. I have apologized to my wife and after getting the police report I will drop it. I take the comments here to heart and believe those that have pointed out they would be embarrased with me makes me reconsider my position and also makes me feel equal to how I see OCT act. For that I apologize to this community. We do not need CHLers that put the responsible ones in a negative light as they get enough from the unlicensed ones just fine. With that my most deeply heartfelt apologies.

15 seconds later I was heading to my truck. If she had pepper sprayed me things probably would have deteriorated quickly when I started blindly shooting in all directions trying to defend myself from this attacking grandma. Imagine the chaos!
.

rtschl wrote: Instead of filing a lawsuit, I would contact the local and corporate management of the store and the security company and file a complaint with all three. But with respect I would suggest that next time you at least stop and answer the person and de-escalate the situation.

I'm not sure that I would have been as assertive as the OP to get to walk away... Although had I been pepper sprayed, I'm pretty sure that I'd be talking to my attorney.

puma guy wrote:From what the OP has stated the LPO at Moon's violated just about every one of the Best Practices recommendations of professional security agents organizations. Certainly a lively debate to be sure.

WildBill wrote:

puma guy wrote:From what the OP has stated the LPO at Moon's violated just about every one of the Best Practices recommendations of professional security agents organizations. Certainly a lively debate to be sure.

I was wondering the same about Moon's and their contractors.

VMI77 wrote:Plenty of others have commented about most everything in this incident. I'll limit my comment to this....when you said "I'll drop you" the SO may not have known you were armed, and you may not have intended the statement to mean "shoot him." However, had the situation escalated to the point where you actually used your gun, and your "I'll drop you" statement had been witnessed or testified to in court, I think it highly unlikely that anyone on the jury would attach any meaning to it other than you intended to shoot him.

puma guy wrote:

WildBill wrote:

puma guy wrote:From what the OP has stated the LPO at Moon's violated just about every one of the Best Practices recommendations of professional security agents organizations. Certainly a lively debate to be sure.

I was wondering the same about Moon's and their contractors.

Did some investigation early in the debate. Also tried to find some definitive cases for anti-theft sensors used for stops. Wasn't all that successful but saw one in DC where trained special agents manned a store's monitors. The suit addressed a 4th Amend violation. Interestingly I found these private agents (non-LEO) were considered agents of the state by the courts and as such were allowed to search which LPO's are not allowed to do. Found an old case that I remember from my days at Globe Discount City that arose from a claim of false imprisonment for actions by a LP guy at one of our stores. All the management got read the riot act even though Globe had prevailed. We were told if you don't see the act and continually monitor the actor then don't bother. Manager's per SOP were expected to respond to incidents that were serious or getting out of hand. The PA would announce a code 99. I was in a Walgreen's a few month's ago and they called a Code 99 over the PA. (Globe was a division of Walgreen's.) I asked the check-out clerk if the code was what I thought it was and she said indeed it was. Still using the same code 50 years on.

Keith B wrote:

puma guy wrote:

WildBill wrote:

puma guy wrote:From what the OP has stated the LPO at Moon's violated just about every one of the Best Practices recommendations of professional security agents organizations. Certainly a lively debate to be sure.

I was wondering the same about Moon's and their contractors.

Did some investigation early in the debate. Also tried to find some definitive cases for anti-theft sensors used for stops. Wasn't all that successful but saw one in DC where trained special agents manned a store's monitors. The suit addressed a 4th Amend violation. Interestingly I found these private agents (non-LEO) were considered agents of the state by the courts and as such were allowed to search which LPO's are not allowed to do. Found an old case that I remember from my days at Globe Discount City that arose from a claim of false imprisonment for actions by a LP guy at one of our stores. All the management got read the riot act even though Globe had prevailed. We were told if you don't see the act and continually monitor the actor then don't bother. Manager's per SOP were expected to respond to incidents that were serious or getting out of hand. The PA would announce a code 99. I was in a Walgreen's a few month's ago and they called a Code 99 over the PA. (Globe was a division of Walgreen's.) I asked the check-out clerk if the code was what I thought it was and she said indeed it was. Still using the same code 50 years on.

Actually, depending on what you call a 'search', it is legal. A licensed level two security guard can perform a 'frisk' of an individual being detained for their safety or the safety of others http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/psb//t ... review.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

puma guy wrote:From what the OP has stated the LPO at Moon's violated just about every one of the Best Practices recommendations of professional security agents organizations. Certainly a lively debate to be sure.