Carry Incident help please

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sport...

you make a very good point. This is like a fight at school where both kids swear the other one started it. I highly doubt the store security tackled with no warning. However, we will probably never know the full truth. That being said this thread should probably get closed. It's you basic Lawyers vs. Sensible people thread!:rolleyes:
 
I think you did the right thing - the guy who grabbed you and wrestled you to the ground is a power-tripping @$$hole and he had no right to touch you.

What kind of an idiot that is being paid minimum wage is going to do something like that over a $15 CD?? Totally asinine!! Add to that the fact that he has NO police powers and the fact is that he assaulted you. You paid for the CD - "store policy" does not justify his attack, period!

Without a doubt, I would sue the store. Obviously, they have no concept of how to train employees to deal with suspected shoplifting. The only language they understand is getting their @$$es kicked monetarily, so speak to them in the language they understand. If you let this go, they will continue to treat other people in the same way.

Actually, my attorney just contacted the store and the employee. 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...
Outstanding!! I hope you end up a very rich man!

People need to get it through their heads that you don't go around tackling/assaulting people without paying the price. Over a $15 CD - Jeeezus, give me a break!!

And BTW, the police are to be commended for the way they dealt with the situation. I would definitely write their commander and ask him to give each of them a letter of commendation.
 
If I am tackled from behind, day or night, busy or deserted, sidewalk or corporate property, I'm going down hard, and I'm taking damage. I'm drawing, if I'm still at all functional, and absolutely justified in firing.
Click to expand...
whatever, dude.
 
But, knowing that walking out like that might insight a response, however illegal that response may be, I think it was entirely inappropriate to draw his weapon when such a response came. Maybe he forgot or never realized such a response might happen? Well, that is just negligent IMO and that would likely mitigate his claim of battery. You have to expect something might happen when you do something like that AND ESPECIALLY when you are armed with a deadly weapon you need to be extra careful and diligent not to help create bad situations - even when you are acting within your legal rights otherwise.
Click to expand...

The circumstances of his leaving the store the way he did are probably what made the difference between his pulling the gun and pulling the trigger. In other words, he DID take those circumstances into consideration and it probably caused a hesitation just long enough to see it was the guard.

JC - If you refuse to pay enough staff so that I don't stand in line to leave AFTER I have bought my merchandise, you are taking the chance that I'll get pissed off and LEGALLY leave. If someone on your staff then runs up behind me and tackles me, potentially fatally injuring me, you have risked that I won't hear him for some reason until I'm down. You'll also risk that I'm armed. And that I am, as at least Florida law says, "in a place I'm legally allowed to be" and not "engaged in any illegal acts". In other words, I'll be legally completely within my rights to blow your guard away. If I'm not quick enough in my thinking to stop that happening, it is very unlikely I'll be prosecuted and, as such, I cannot be sued. YOU, however, will definitely pay for every scratch on me, at emergency room rates, plus a penalty for scaring the s**t out of me unnecessarily, plus my (and your) attorney fees, and court costs. Then you, not I, will face the civil wrath of the guard's family. Having receipt in hand, the aggression will have been entirely yours.

That isn't to say I might not be more patient than New Master, but it depends on if 13th in line meant waiting 2-3 extra minutes or meant waiting an extra 20.
 
Actually, my attorney just contacted the store and the employee. 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...

File it. There are a LOT of people who can't get it through their thick heads that starting a fistfight or tackling somebody CAN KILL THEM. Believe me, if you had shot the guy and not been in a state that protects you, you would have been hounded by the idea that "he didn't use a weapon", the implication being you met with lethal force that which is seen as non-lethal. Trouble is, what he did is NOT non-lethal. It's potentially deadly.

That's why God made idiots. To use as examples.
 
You armchair lawyers keep giving him "good" advice!

I can only hope that in the end he loses and they file a counter suit and it bites him right on the butt! I keep seeing posters refer to the security as a Rambo wannabe!:rolleyes: It seems to me like master is the Rambo wannabe. He left when everyone else in line stayed. He must be more important than the other 20 people standing in line. He knew it could potentially cause a scene and when something happened he freaked out and sticks a gun in some guys face. I would bet money that he knew who he was pulling on before he even drew his weapon. Walk away man! Don't listen to all this BS! I can't stand to read any more of this nonsense. I'm out!
 
I can only hope that in the end he loses and they file a counter suit and it bites him right on the butt! I keep seeing posters refer to the security as a Rambo wannabe! It seems to me like master is the Rambo wannabe. He left when everyone else in line stayed. He must be more important than the other 20 people standing in line. He knew it could potentially cause a scene and when something happened he freaked out and sticks a gun in some guys face. I would bet money that he knew who he was pulling on before he even drew his weapon. Walk away man! Don't listen to all this BS! I can't stand to read any more of this nonsense. I'm out!
Click to expand...
What a load of crap!

He paid and had a receipt - he did what is required by law; there was no crime committed. If the store wants to see his receipt before he leaves, it is on them to provide enough staff so that people don't have to piss away their time waiting in line. I don't blame him - once I had paid, I wouldn't stand in line waiting because the store is too cheap to provide adequate staff to check receipts in a timely and reasonable manner.

And as far as the @$$hole who attacked him, the guy had NO police powers and had no right to put his hands on him, let alone tackle him. The clerk could have said, "Sir, I need to see your sales receipt," but no - he had to play the tough guy. The clerk was 100% in the wrong and the incident was totally his fault.

As far as people urging him to sue, the man's own attorney - who is a laywer - says he should sue, as well as file criminal charges. Obviously he wouldn't advise him to do so if he were 100% in the wrong.
 
assault law in Texas

? 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the
person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical
contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably
believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or
provocative.

I beleve being grabbed from behind constitutes assualt under Texas Law

From the Texas Department of Public Safety Web site for Security Officers

A security officer's authority to question people.

"A security officer is an agent of the property owner and in this role can exercise the owner?s right to question people on the owner?s property. If they refuse to answer the questions, or if their answers are not satisfactory, the officer may ask them to leave. If they do not leave, the officer may contact the police and report them for criminal trespassing."

"Do not confuse company policy with criminal law. "

"The authority to arrest is given to all private persons. A security officer arrests with the same power as any other private person. However, because the security officer wears a badge and a uniform, that can lead to misunderstanding and abuse.

Article 14.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states the conditions that allow a private person to make an arrest. Article 14.01 ?Offense within view? A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant , arrest an offender when their offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

Article 15.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that: A person is arrested when he has been actually placed under restraint or taken into custody by an officer or person executing a warrant of arrest, or by an officer or person arresting without a warrant,

"In simple terms an arrest is a form of lawful control by one person over the actions of another. An arrest, in Texas law, is ?The apprehension or detention of another in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for an alleged or supposed crimes .? An arrest may be made by a peace officer or private citizen. To deprive someone of their liberty or freedom of movement may be viewed as an arrest.

IF YOU, BY COMMUNICATION OR OTHER MEANS MAKE A PERSON FEEL THAT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO GO THEN YOU HAVE ARRESTED THEM."

"Some acts by security officers for which criminal liability is possible include:
Intimidation:
Threatening physical harm or otherwise frightening people when they do not cooperate or confess to a crime.
Excessive physical force:
When an arrest is made, the law allows only the use of force that is reasonable and necessary to restrain the suspect. When more force is used than the law allows, the arresting party is said to have used ? excessive force .?

"The arresting party may be held criminally and civilly liable"

"A private person making an arrest may be found criminally liable if the offense did not happen within their presence or view and the offense was neither a felony nor a misdemeanor against the public peace. If you arrest a person it did not meet the above criteria you could be charged with the criminal offense of Unlawful Restraint PC 20.02) which is punishable by fine and or jail or prison time or both.

"Civil Practice Chapter 124 ?privilege to investigate theft? states that ?A person who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable tim to investigate the ownership of the property.

Security officers working in ?retail? assignments MAY use the above statue to arrest or detain suspects. It is important to remember that the offender must be taken to a police officer or a magistrate.

It important to comply with company policy with regards to arrest or detainment of any person to avoid civil and criminal liability for you and the company.

""A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

""It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."
"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

any questions?

If you have to go thru a legal mental checklist before you use your legal firearm for self defense you might as well leave it at the house.
 
oh yeah, cause lawyers certainly have impeccable character and would never urge someone to do something without monetary interests in mind. :rolleyes:

i'm not saying New Master is the only one in the wrong. the stores reciept checker was in the wrong, however his wrong was instigated by New Masters impatience. the whole situation could have been avoided, and should have, had new master been sensible.

did any of you trigger happy ccw'ers retain anything about 'de-escalation'?
 
So there we go - the tough guy clerk was 100% in the wrong.:D

Thanks for clarifying that, Eghad. As I said above - he paid and had a receipt; no crime was committed on his part. The only crimes were those committed by Rambo the clerk.
 
"did any of you trigger happy ccw'ers retain anything about 'de-escalation'?"
Click to expand...
how do you de-escalate being tackled from behind?

I suppose someone tackles you from behind just because he wanted say hello?
 
not talking about that part of the encounter.
New master escalated the situation by blowing past the reciept checker.

and even so, i really cannot justify drawing down on someone who tackles me from behind. a simple tackle does not pose an imminent threat to me, maybe it does to someone who is frail.
now if i happen to be stabbed in the process, thats a different story. hit with a blunt object, then we're in the realm of justified response with the use of deadly force.

go back to new masters situation. as soon as contact is made he goes into 'retention mode', trying to secure his gun, then he rolls his shoulder, i dunno, does a tac-roll, and draws down on the guys head.

i'll admit, he has good reflexes. better than mine. but i still dont see a justification for a deadly force response.
 
how do you de-escalate being tackled from behind?
Click to expand...

"I don't know who you are sir, but please have mercy on me or I may have to blow my whistle...pretty please...aw, c'mon..have mercy, please?!!"

Maybe us CCW's should put 911 on the speed dial so if we get attacked we can call in real quick to see if its ok to defend ourself.:rolleyes:

'911 state your emergency'

'I just got tackled and am being beaten, can I defend myself?'

'What's the suspect look like?'

"Ow he's OW he's OW!!, I can't see through the blood':rolleyes:

I still think newmaster did good.
 
Your such a big fella he probably would have given himself a concussion if he tackled you. You would have probably thought the bugs were getting well fed :p

You dont assault people for not showing thier receipt....The checker should have called it a day.

the checker was not trained or had terminal colon blockage.

Your job is loss prevention not making liability against your company.
 
I am sometimes amused by those who seem to think that they have eyes on all sides of their heads, and ears like a guard dog. I guess they have never walked in a reasonably crowded parking lot.

Unless you make it a point to keep 10 yards or so away from everyone, you can get surprised. I have never found that possible in those places.

I think he did the correct thing, assuming the report is correct.

Jerry
 
I tried to stay out but I can't!

Steelheart's ignorance won't allow me to do so. I have read a few of your posts. You seem to be an angry individual. As far as your last few posts, how do you know someone didn't say something to him? How do you know the security didn't say something to him? Newmaster isn't going to tell us if they did. That would only make him look stupid and in the wrong. Let's recap: Newmaster can't wait in line like everyone else (this line of twenty is probably more like 3-4). Newmaster blows by the reciept checker on his way out and never turns to see if anyone cared. The "Rambo":rolleyes: security is informed that someone left the store without getting their reciept checked. Stupid or not, I can guarantee you that the security's first response was not "I am gonna go tackle this guy without trying to get his attention and stop him". I am calling a big BS on Newmasters story! It just doesn't happen this way. We will never get the full story. Those of you who are telling him to sue without knowing the full story are just plain ignorant! Like someone already stated, I never would have guessed a lawyer would be agging on a lawsuit!:rolleyes: Maybe I should file a lawsuit against some of you guys for making the gun owning population look more stupid than we really are.
 
One time, years ago, I joined Costco. Bought a bunch of stuff and left after paying. No "receipt checkers." A month or so later, went to Costco again. This time they had somebody checking all receipts. One checker and about 40 people in line to be let out the door.

Twin Falls is a 40 mile country drive from my house. The Costco building has one Entrance/Exit. You go in through the big door and immediately turn left and proceed into a gate through the fence. The only way out is through the checkstands at the rear of the building. There are about 15 checkstands and all that are not manned are cordoned off. Plus there are 4 or so guards just beyond the checkstands that stand and watch for people leaving through this area.

After observing all of this security, I thought it was pretty stupid to be checking peoples receipts as if they were guilty of shoplifting. And believe me, despite what they may say, that is exactly what they are doing.

I went directly to the customer service desk after being "cleared" at the checkstands and inquired if I had to submit to further "inspections" before I could leave. In a word, I was told, yes. I handed the clerk my Costco card and my receipt. I told him that here were all the things I had bought. I wanted my money back, since I haven't taken leave of the building and I wanted to cancel my membership. And no, I wasn't going to wait around for everything to be rescanned. I had wasted enough time.

I had my monies returned and I left. I've never been back.

In every other place that I have been that didn't require a membership, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc., I leave after paying for my merchandise. I have never stood in line to be rechecked. I simply walk past any such nonsense. The only exception to this that I have made is if the tag hasn't been properly deactivated. Then I will wait. No alarms? I just walk on out.

In the case at hand, the only recourse the business has is to not invite me back, should they not like my taking possession of my goods and immediately leaving their premises.

A business that wants my money in exchange for their goods will treat me as a customer and not as a criminal. Period. Some of you seem to think you are obligated to be re-inspected after your purchase and that's how some of these businesses get away with treating you like a crook. I don't buy it and I won't buy it. Voting with your wallet is the strongest language a merchant knows.

I've been in retail sales for the past 15 years, 10 of which have been with management. If I were to do what some of these merchants do, I would be looking for a new job. Differences between a small town and the big city? Or maybe just simple respect for our customers.

New master? Ya did well.
 
To stop or not

In essence the question seems to be whether or not use of force was warranted by the store employee, and if not, was the gunowner legally within his right to use or threaten to use deadly force. In the state of Washington the following rules of law could apply, but they might be very different from the laws in other regions. I thought I would post these since we have several members here in the great Northwest :) who might run into something similar as a what if exercise

Use of force:

"Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.

"Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.

Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains
  • unlawfully in a building
or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises,
  • and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

Homicide is also justifiable when committed...:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

Trespassing
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

Defense to criminal trespass: The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises.

Assuming everything happened as reported here...
A store like that is open to the public. The gunowner entered legally, with intent to lawfully purchase an item and was given no indication other than the sight of a line at the door that he was expected to stop.

Who thinks the store employee was acting in a lawful manner? Even if he suspected someone of stealing, is tackling someone necessary force?

I do not think so.

Who thinks the drawing of a weapon was warrented?

Simply being pushed or tackled might not warrant use of a weapon. Though it depends on if the person tackled reasonably feared for life or limb.

Did the gunowner reasonably believe he was being robbed?

In this case, if it were here, it sounds like both parties might have been acting over the top (lawful and reasonable).
Anyone else agree? Disagree? Why?

I keep hoping some dumb store employee will grab me and break my arm or something so I can quit working. LOL Good luck with the litigation :)

Does anybody else ignore the lines at the door? Ever been stopped?

Hey, I went shopping at Fry's for the first time not long ago. I did not buy anything but had a fanny pack on. After I had been shopping a while my friend pointed out the signs saying that you must allow purses backpacks... to be searched. Since I had done nothing wrong, I opted not to stand in line. I would not have allowed them to search me. I walked out and nobody said a word. Since I was carrying a gun in my bag, would it be legal for me to hand it to the pimply faced kid checking receipts, even if I was inclined to do so? What if someone grabbed for it?

I always carry non-lethal options like OC. Also, I think this incident really demonstrates why hand to hand skills are so important. You might just be able to quickly take out the assailant without using a gun.


Shooter429
 
Whether or not New Master shoplifted or was given notice is TOTALLY irrelevant.

Even if he HAD shoplifted and even if he HAD been given notice, TX law allows him to defend himself with force if an unnecessary amount of force is used against him BEFORE he resists being detained or arrested.

The ONLY way that the actions of the security guard could be justified is if New Master had been notified and was either resisting or attempting to flee.

What happened to him was illegal and the people who did it should be held accountable in my opinion.

One can NOT tackle or even forcibly detain someone for violating store policy. Arrests (citizen or otherwise) are for when the LAW is broken. Store policy is not law and a person can not be detained or arrested for violating store policy. EVEN if someone is caught redhanded stealing from a store, they can not be tackled if they don't resist or flee. It's ILLEGAL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top