Carry Incident help please

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eghad,

You are correct but all the loss pervention person has to say is I saw him put merchandise into a bag and he left the store without going through the reciept check line. That would be backed up by the facts even the ones presented by New Master.

I am not saying that the store employee acted properly. If it had happened to me I would be pissed. I would be calling for his head but I would not have drawn my gun on him because the situation did not warrant it and Iwould have known that if I was on top of the situation.
 
Yup but when you get to court a lawyer is going to dissect that story nine ways from Sunday. Now you have added possible perjury to criminal assualt.

He was assualted from behind? How many people have been assualted from behind with deadly force and couldnt see the knife or gun? If the poster was grabbed from behind and tackled to the ground and was in fear for his life he could probably get away with drawing his Concealed Handgun. Which is probably the case since the officers didn't cite him.

What would a reasonable person who has done nothing wrong do if he is assualted and tackled from behind and has a weapon allowed by law and is afraid for his life.

In Texas night time constitutes more latitude for the use of deadly force due to the fact that vision is limited. Is your vision limited if you are attacked from behind and are expecting no attack?
 
The same will go for New Masters story which as others have pointed out seems to have some wholes in it.

IMHO a reasonable person would not have been in the situation that New Master found himself in.

I am interested how this will shake out my guess it that there is a lot missing from the story being told in this thread. It doesn't strike anyone else, besides spiff, as odd that the loss pervention guy never issued a verbal command? Never said stop come back.

That New Master with all his training never saw the guy comming? I guess you really have to watch out for those stealthy ninja loss prevention managers these days.
 
how would a reasonable person not find himself in that situation?

there is no state law that says you must stop and allow the door checker to check your stuff. The only thing the receipt checker must do is let you go on by if he doesnt have probable cause. I betting he had no training.... The door guy can issue all the verbal commands he wants...he is not a law enforcement officer...and he had no probable cause. If store clerk ahd probable cause the poster wouldnt be posting he would be wating on someone to bail him out.

If the store clerk was at the front door how many register lanes could he observe? Once the clerk was shown the reciept he was on shaky ground and if the manager called the police he was doubly dumb, now he has two additional witnesses who are law enforcment officers. I doubt the officers are going to commit perjury.
 
Rellascout - in regards to your proclamation that "Not many people are killed in a busy parking lot full of cars and customers," - 9 out of 10 stories I hear from people with CCW who have to draw/use their weapon usually involve a Walmart parking lot sometime after the sun sets. I most definitely consider myself more likely to be the taget of a violent crime in any parking lot at night.
 
I am not going to continue to debate this. New master is on shaky ground at best. IMHO

As I and others have stated if he continues to go down the legal road he will run into many issues of finger pointing and in the end will be find himself the subject of a civil if not criminal case.

If you think he was 100% in the right, defend him to the ends of the earth. In my mind he helped to make a mountain from a mole hill.

Here in VA he would find himself under scruntiny that would consider did he play a part in escalating or creating the confrontation. If the judge or jury determined that he played a role then he would be in trouble and could easily find himself facing a weapons charge.
 
eghad, i may be wrong on this, but at a place such as costco, who as i recall, started the whole checking reciept thing, is it spelled out in the membership package?
i would defend a stores ability to check reciepts at a place such as costco, because the way our costco stores are built, the reciept checker doesnt have any view at all of who just got done checking out. for all they know, the customer could have stopped for a slice of pizza or hotdog, and walked back to grab some merch they didnt pay for to put with the rest of their stuff.
same at best buy. checkers cant see the cashiers.
walmart, i'm half and half on. if i make my purchase back at sporting goods or electronics, and walk back through to the front, i won't throw a tantrum for having my bag/reciept checked, but if i just got rang up 30 feet from the door and the checker watched me walk from there to him/her, i'll tell them 'No thanks' should they ask to check my reciept. they could care less, and besides its usually an old man or woman manning that position. if they can tackle me to the ground, i'll be quite impressed.

Once the clerk was shown the reciept he was on shaky ground and if the manager called the police he was doubly dumb, now he has two additional witnesses who are law enforcment officers. I doubt the officers are going to commit perjury.
Click to expand...
when was the clerk shown the reciept in this incident? before or after he looked down the business end of New Masters gun? Why would the manager be dumb for calling the police? would he have known the whole story from the get go? or should he go out there and talk to the crazed shoplifter holding his employee at gunpoint?

rellascouts point is that a reasonable person would have patient, waited in line, which by the way, would only take about the amount of time it takes to extract the cd from its cellophane wrapping and remove the sticker from the case. a reasonable person would have behaved like the rest of the customers.

even though the story is missing a lot of detail, mistakes were made on both sides.
 
Allright first let me say this, I used to work in retail in a mall. This mall was in a part of town that was starting to go down the tubes anyway. We had a guy steal something one day and we asked him to come back to the store and he did oddly enough. My manager and I confronted him and found the item. She told me to call security and when she did the guy pushed her down and ran. Now we had the item back, but I was ticked off that he threw my boss down, so I gave security directions where he was headed and I took off after him. Long story short I almost caught him til he knocked a clothes rack over on me in jcpenney's and made it to the door and he was gone. Security shows, helps me up, and takes me back to my store. Security guys are like 'well to bad we didn't get him blah blah blah' The next day my district manager calls and thanks me, but then chews me out for chasing the guy saying I could have gotten shot etc,etc and that it's not our policy to pursue even with proof. If the person stays and security shows up then they can detain, til LEOs show up. Now point of all this is every place i've ever worked or been to employees are NEVER supposed to pursue anyone outside the store. Security might be able to, but they aren't supposed to tackle you! Anytime i've ever been stopped or questioned by security it's always 'excuse me sir' and maybe a tap on the arm or such.

Now i'll say this New Master was a bit careless in his decision to circumvent store policy, but 9pm at night in a parking lot someone tackles me i'd have done the same thing, if not just beaten the crap out of them. Let's put it this way say New Master had been a thief, Rambo from the electronic's department's family might be putting him in the ground right now.

Rellascout and Spacemanspiff seem pretty quick to pin this mostly on New Master because he circumvented the policy. True he did ignore policy which instigated it, but the clerk/security guard acted wrongly too. Alot of incidents get escalated because someone does something like this, i.e circumvents policy, accidentally cuts someone off in traffic, etc. My personal opinion is New Master next time just wait in line and on that same note instead of pursuing all this through court and the likes just take it to the top of the store's corporate ladder. Could be the clerk was just overzealous and didn't adhere to store policy at all. Get his cocky butt fired. Should do the trick.:cool:
 
Some interesting points all the way around. The consensus seems to be that details are lacking, and I agree.

I suppose my biggest problem is the instigation theory, i.e. by circumventing the receipt line the OP instigated the problem. I don't agree with that. Others disagree with me.

The other disagreement I have is people stating that he shouldn't have drawn on a security guard/store employee. In this case the OP didn't draw on a security guard (at least in his mind), he drew on some unknown assailent who had tackled him. I don't have a problem with that. Obviously if you know it is a security guard and you know your life is not in danger you should not draw.

It comes down to people thinking that by circumventing the line the OP shuold have been on "alert" that he was going to be tackled. For me, there is no connection between the two. If it was me, and I was tackled without warning I would not instantly think "I got tackled because I circumvented the receipt line."

Bedula32
A social contract is what is expected of people in a civilized society. Believe it or not it is an often used term, especially when talking about gray areas of law. People get charged with criminal offenses like disorderly conduct and criminal mischief all the time for things they thought were not illegal because it violates "social contracts". Lots of things are only illegal when done in the wrong place at the wrong time and with the intention of being disruptive. I have actually seen judges explain to beligerant defendants and litigants why what they did violated the law (either civil and criminal) because it failed a "social contract". It is a social contract to act in an orderly way and respect the store's policies when you have either been fully notified of those policies ahead of time or you have been there before and know the drill. Don't like it then don't shop there. You don't get to have it both ways and just ignore those policies when it suits you. Again, first time in the store and you get a pass because unless they made it clear ahead of time you have not 'agreed' to stop and show any receipt and you got all the right in the world to say "BS, I'm not doing that and I'm walking out of here with MY stuff." You still better not pull a gun though on any security guard but at least the very first time you would be entirely morally justified to scoff at the store policies, assuming the policies are not normal and customary that is, which as of yet being stopped and being expected to show a reciept upon exit is not. After that when you enter that store you are literally 'agreeing' (contracting) to abide by their policies. At that point either wait in line or don't shop there - your choice.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation on social contract, but I'm not sure I completely believe you. You say that social contract is used in gray areas of the law - both civil and criminal. I was under the impression that almost all states have codified their criminal law. Do some states still prosecute criminals based on the common law?

At any rate, we agree that social contract could be used in a civil suit and we both agree that the tackling was wrong. Our disagreement seems to be based on what I talked in the paragraphs above.

I appreciate the rest of your comments. I tend to debate based on principle. Your comments show the experience of someone who knows how the world really works.
 
What would I have done?

The poster asked what would you have done? Having spent almost 20 years in retail loss prevention my answer would have to be, given the circumstances as described I would probably have gotten the attention of the checker, held up my purchase and waived my receipt and said, "Got to go" and walked by and out. If I was jumped from behind I would hope that I would react in as restrained a manner as New Master stated he did.

Most stores have a "no pursuit" policy for reasons much like those stated. Recently, I believe it was in Tennessee, a store LP person merely followed a suspect from the store and asked if that person would wait a minute - suspect turned and shot and killed the LP agent; here in Charlotte, a Deputy Sheriff working off duty as store security followed a couple to their car, asked to talk with them, the man shot and killed the Deputy.

A lot of issues have been brought out but in the final analysis each situation is different. I teach the following: to make a shoplifting case you MUST see the subject conceal merchandise (North Carolina law says that is enough to arrest) AND keep the subject under continuous surveillance AND the subject MUST pass the cash registers. You may then request the subject come with you to the office to discuss "something of importance". If subject turns and runs call police, get vehicle description and tag info if possible. Do not attempt to stop on just the concealment part!

The risk of injury to the store employee and/or lawsuit from a mistake is simply too great. And yes, case law is filled with lawsuits for wrongful stops and the publicity is not good either.

If you object to having your receipt checked against your purchases, discuss it with store management, send an e-mail to store headquarters, etc. but by and large you really should follow store policy. If the line is too long and you are truly in a hurry, do as I suggested I would do. I have.

I think New Master, based on what he stated, did just fine and I think the responding officers thought so too. Everything else, including my post, is just opinions.

John
Charlotte, NC
 
Something that could have turned out similar happened to me a ways back. I don't stop for the "Wal Mart Automated Inventory Control System" aka, The Voice Of Wally-God. Sorry, I've never stolen a thing from a retail store and if they fail to scan/cancel some security device properly it isn't my problem. As such I one time had some Wally Wart employee come charging out after me accompanied by the Voice of Wally-God. I heard the footsteps, turned and, seeing the goober in question, pointed my finger at him and told him if he touched me I would break his arm.

He threatened me with the police.

I got out the phone and called it in.

The cops refused to come and said if they don't stop you in the store they have no authority whatsoever and they(the police) were not going to mess with such crap unless the Goober was willing to state on record he KNEW I had perpetrated a theft. I assume that would have made him guilty of a false report if they found nothing(and that's what they would have found, of course). He refused. The fact the po-po knew me may have helped, I admit that, though.

Point being, and on further research, it appears to me any unwanted physical contact once one is outside the store is grounds for an assault charge in many(most?) states. Their authority ends at the front door, even if they have firm knowledge you are a theif. At that point their duty is to call the PD and report a theft, not a vague suspicion and certainly not to escalate a physical confrontation. As such I'd say Master done good, could have done better in situational awareness and the Goober is lucky to still have a head.

NOTE: "Store Policy" is not the law, nor is it my policy, nor do I automatically submit to it by purchasing from a store. As such any "violation" of it is a non-issue, until the day someone can get a prosecution on such a thing. I don't see that happening any time soon... Anyway, just another opinion and we've all got 'em. :)
 
Their authority ends at the front door, even if they have firm knowledge you are a theif.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that? The store's property goes past the front door, and store personnel can use "reasonable means" to stop you as long as you're on their property, including their parking lot, if they have good reason to believe you've stolen something. If a thief walked the front door of your home carrying your new laptop, would you stop at the front door? Same principle...

Whether the means of restraint is reasonable is usually going to depend on the circumstances. If someone grabs an item and bursts through the front door, reasonable means might include physical restraint. In this case, where there was no obvious act of theft, physical action seems a little extreme. However, I wouldn't bank on prevailing in a civil suit. I hope the gentleman's lawyer advised him of the time and expense involved in going to court, the slim likelihood of getting a jury to award much in the way of damages, and the possibility of a counterclaim by the traumatized store employee.
 
Really......what did you think would happen?

"Ok, as all of you kow places like best buy, costco, etc all ask you to hand them a receipt so they can check and make sure they did not charge you extra for something right ? lol"

Actually I think they check the receipt to make sure you haven't stolen something.....
If you were fully aware of the store policy and didn't agree with it, why the hell were you shopping there?
Try this sometime in an airport or courthouse, the cops won't think it's so funny.
I also have a hard time buying into the part that you got taken down without warning. What normal chuckle head would blow past the door check and not look back to see if it created a stir??
Sounds like a load of BS to me!
 
Lawsuits???

It's amazing you even like guns. You are the reason that gun lovers are in trouble in the first place. Are you hurt? No. That is why you carry right? To protect yourself? You should be glad that it was not a real threat. You should also be glad that you did not fire. Both of you left with your lives. Cut the frivilous lawsuit crap and get on with your life.
 
How do you figure that?
Click to expand...

Based on the possible outcome of a confrontation in the parking lot. Based on the lawsuit potential if the employee is wrong. Based on the lawsuit potential if the potentially now dead employ was right. Based on the statements of local PD and state PD and the staff of Wal Mart(at a later date) and the policies of the stores my wife manages...

It isn't your home. The rules that apply in your home don't apply at a store. Also, liability is something stores don't want to incur, and giving pursuit has too many various liability issues. Say Master had shot the guy: He would go to jail, be charged with a crime(maybe convicted, maybe not) then sued by the family of the dead employee...who you can bet would also sue the store. Say he did NOT shoot the guy that tackled him but was instead injured himself. For no reason. There's another lawsuit, and almost certainly a BIG winner for Master.

Best scenerio? You chase some guy out the door, he has a fit, calls your manager and you get fired. At least everyone is alive and un-sued and you get to look for another job while your family tells you what a hero you are.

You stop at the door. You call the cops. That's the only completely responsible decision available and then only if you actually think you have a thief and not someone who just isn't submitting to your store rules...
 
PS: Oops I started in on this on the 3rd page and have just now read it from the beginning. I would have done the same thing if grabbed from behind. I lived in downtown Chicago and did work in campus security there. No way I would just let someone grab me from behind with out some sort of retaliation. Sure glad you had the wits not to pull the trigger. Good job.
 
He is in the process of filing a civil suit against the store and employee, and is urgining me to file criminal action as well.
Click to expand...

Gee... who'da thunk an attorney was in favor of filing a suit.

If you weren't seriously and permanently hurt, what are you after? Trying to get some big company to fund your retirement?

Drop the suit, don't waste taxpayer dollars on frivolous suits.
 
The rules that apply in your home don't apply at a store.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that? Stores are private property, and anyone who enters has impliedly agreed to follow the store's rules, just as anyone who enters your home has impliedly agreed to follow the rules you set. One of those rules may be that you have your sales receipt inspected on your way out. If you don't do so, the store might legitimately assume you stole the item and use reasonable means to restrain you and recover the item believed stolen. The question here is what are reasonable means.

Of course, store policy may dictate that employees don't pursue shoplifters, but this doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to attempt to stop a theft in progress. Everyone has this right, for Pete's sake. No one is required to stand idly by while their property is stolen.

A fairly recent case in Texas illustrates this point. A shoplifter stole an item from a Wal Mart store last summer. He was restrained by Wal Mart employees who held him down on the hot asphalt parking lot until police arrived. Despite his pleas to be released, he was not, and later died as a result of the incident. Suit was filed against Wal Mart, not on the basis that the store didn't have the right to pursue and restrain a shoplifter, but that they used excessive force in doing so. His family may well win a judgment in this case.

As for lawsuits, keep this in mind: there has to be a legal basis for liability, and there must also be damages. One without the other is insufficient to recover in a civil suit. In this case (although I don't know all the details), liability is questionable, since the clerk may have been acting reasonably under the circumstances. As for damages, my reading of the facts indicates they're nonexistent. I wouldn't hold my breath at becoming rich on the basis of a suit against the store.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top