steelheart
Moderator
Oh, the irony!!
ROFLMAO!!! Nice sh*tfit, Savage!! That was priceless!
+1000, John!
Carry Incident help please
- Thread starter New_Master
- Start date
- Status
spacemanspiff
New member
if thats the case, johnska, why havent retailers who employ undercover security been sued out of business? i know several who work in this capacity. they routinely detain (sometimes forcibly) shoplifters. one guy i know chose to quit after he used too much force and broke a shoplifters arm while taking him down. he wasnt fired, the store nor him was not sued, he chose to quit that position.
this kind of thing happens all the time. you want to tell me that whatever lawyer those shoplifters have had did not know that those actions by store security was illegal?
my point is, store security can and does use force. however, regular employees are not supposed to do it, and they will cite 'insurance' as the reason. but the fact of the matter is, that there is no guarantee the insurance company wont pay up on a claim because the regular employee acted outside the scope of his duties. its their automatic response to try and deny the claim, but theres a good chance they will wind up having to pay.
with that said, properly trained store security, will know what level of force they can use, and how to approach a person they suspect of shoplifting.
it would help if the original poster would divulge more details about this incident.
this kind of thing happens all the time. you want to tell me that whatever lawyer those shoplifters have had did not know that those actions by store security was illegal?
my point is, store security can and does use force. however, regular employees are not supposed to do it, and they will cite 'insurance' as the reason. but the fact of the matter is, that there is no guarantee the insurance company wont pay up on a claim because the regular employee acted outside the scope of his duties. its their automatic response to try and deny the claim, but theres a good chance they will wind up having to pay.
with that said, properly trained store security, will know what level of force they can use, and how to approach a person they suspect of shoplifting.
it would help if the original poster would divulge more details about this incident.
If New Master has an attorney and is suing, we won't see hide nor hair of him for a while... At the very least not about this.spacemanspiff said:
Now, if I suspect someone of shoplifting, I may not detain him using force. I can intercept the suspect before he leaves the store and ask that he come with me. And I've done that many times. (Just amazing how co-operative people can become when the right words/tone is used.) At this point I call the police and let them handle it.
If however, I or another employee in the store actually observes the theft and continuously watches the idjut, then I can detain, using appropriate force to affect the arrest. Yup. I'm arresting the perp. Again, I will call the police, keeping the subject under scrutiny. When they get there, I or the witnessing employee, will tell the police what was observed, what was taken and almost always where it is on the suspects person. The police now have probable cause to effect a search.
Once they are outside the store, it is all the on the police to effect capture and it is on us to be the best possible witness. Period.
riverrat66
New member
Let me ask you something. If this is indeed true, I'll bet it happened inside the store. I know in my neck of the woods security cannot pursue anyone off the store property and the store property ends at the curb. We just had a case where some guys shoplifted some very expensive fur coats and ran out of the store and once they were past the curb security had to stop chasing them because they were not allowed to chase them into the parking lot. Once the shoplifter gets out of the store it is no longer a matter for store security. As unbelievable as it sounds the shoplifters could have stood there and thumbed their nose at the security guys and they could not do a damn thing about it because they were off store property. It was all over the 11 o'clock news and people were outraged but that's the law.spacemanspiff said:
JohnKSa is absolutely 100% correct on this one.
Huh?Savage10FP308 said:
And Savage, well he doesn't have a clue.
New_Master
New member
Real Story
Hi Everyone. First off, I would like to thank everyone here that has contributed, no matter what their opinions were, even if you were a mal nija that has absolute control and tactical awareness 100% of the time. I appologize in advance if this was decitful, and I did not mean to hurt anyones feelings. I wanted a forthright discussion not a scenario talk. This really brought up great points from eveyone that contributed.
I posted this mainly to get insightful responses here from CCW people as an experiemnt to see what opinions people had on the subject. A 50 year old person being tackled from behind at night in a parking lot, not knowing until after the draw it was a store employee.
Some have criticized that to draw was inapproriate, even though being phycically attacked from the rear. Some say u should have had eyes in the back of your head, even though people can close 15 ft in 2 seconds.
I sometimes wonder why alot of people even bother to carry when faced with a threat if the attitude here is basically until they stab me in the back, i'm not gonna draw, even if you are phycally being taken down. I hope the people that have posted that you should not draw just because u get tackled have grapling expereince, since 80% of fights end up on the ground, and being on the ground is one of the worst places to be since u are so vulnerable.
Well, back to my post, did this really happen. No. I hope people are not mad at me for posting this, but it realy got some good responses from EVERYONE, no matter what your view points where. Some people argued for a communist state where after you purchase something, per social contract people are allowed to detain you. Others have brought up the valid point of force met with only apropriate use of force.
I guess the real question is: what would you do when this happens to you ?? If oyu have ever been tackled, you go down in about a second. I really hope this discussion has stimulated what you might do in a situation if you do decide to carry and you do come under physical attack.
Best regardfs,
New_Master
Hi Everyone. First off, I would like to thank everyone here that has contributed, no matter what their opinions were, even if you were a mal nija that has absolute control and tactical awareness 100% of the time. I appologize in advance if this was decitful, and I did not mean to hurt anyones feelings. I wanted a forthright discussion not a scenario talk. This really brought up great points from eveyone that contributed.
I posted this mainly to get insightful responses here from CCW people as an experiemnt to see what opinions people had on the subject. A 50 year old person being tackled from behind at night in a parking lot, not knowing until after the draw it was a store employee.
Some have criticized that to draw was inapproriate, even though being phycically attacked from the rear. Some say u should have had eyes in the back of your head, even though people can close 15 ft in 2 seconds.
I sometimes wonder why alot of people even bother to carry when faced with a threat if the attitude here is basically until they stab me in the back, i'm not gonna draw, even if you are phycally being taken down. I hope the people that have posted that you should not draw just because u get tackled have grapling expereince, since 80% of fights end up on the ground, and being on the ground is one of the worst places to be since u are so vulnerable.
Well, back to my post, did this really happen. No. I hope people are not mad at me for posting this, but it realy got some good responses from EVERYONE, no matter what your view points where. Some people argued for a communist state where after you purchase something, per social contract people are allowed to detain you. Others have brought up the valid point of force met with only apropriate use of force.
I guess the real question is: what would you do when this happens to you ?? If oyu have ever been tackled, you go down in about a second. I really hope this discussion has stimulated what you might do in a situation if you do decide to carry and you do come under physical attack.
Best regardfs,
New_Master
Last edited:
spacemanspiff,
I posted excerpts from the law directly quoted from the Texas Penal Code. You can read them yourself if you don't like my analysis. As I read it, clearly, even an LEO must notify a person and meet resistance before he can use force against an arrestee/detainee. A security guard would have to do at LEAST the same.
HOWEVER, things are very different if the person flees or resists--at that point, if you read the excerpts of the law that I posted, things are very different. In fact, TX law even allows the property owner to use deadly force to recover stolen property if the proper narrowly defined conditions and circumstances stated in the law apply.
In other words, the fact that security sometimes legally uses force does not make it legal in all cases--implying otherwise would be the equivalent of stating: "So and so shot a person and was not sued or prosecuted--therefore it is legal for anyone to shoot a person without fear of being sued".
We should all realize that the specific circumstances of a case make the difference between an action being legal or illegal. There are certainly cases where the use of force (even deadly force under TX law) to detain and/or recover property is legal, but given the situation as we have been told it, this is not one of those cases.
[edit]Was in the middle of composing my reply when New Master posted the "mystery ending."[/edit]
I posted excerpts from the law directly quoted from the Texas Penal Code. You can read them yourself if you don't like my analysis. As I read it, clearly, even an LEO must notify a person and meet resistance before he can use force against an arrestee/detainee. A security guard would have to do at LEAST the same.
HOWEVER, things are very different if the person flees or resists--at that point, if you read the excerpts of the law that I posted, things are very different. In fact, TX law even allows the property owner to use deadly force to recover stolen property if the proper narrowly defined conditions and circumstances stated in the law apply.
In other words, the fact that security sometimes legally uses force does not make it legal in all cases--implying otherwise would be the equivalent of stating: "So and so shot a person and was not sued or prosecuted--therefore it is legal for anyone to shoot a person without fear of being sued".
We should all realize that the specific circumstances of a case make the difference between an action being legal or illegal. There are certainly cases where the use of force (even deadly force under TX law) to detain and/or recover property is legal, but given the situation as we have been told it, this is not one of those cases.
[edit]Was in the middle of composing my reply when New Master posted the "mystery ending."[/edit]
riverrat66
New member
If you want to pose a question this is not the way to do it! You could have said it was a scenario and asked for everyones advise otherwise it's called TROLLING.New_Master said:
Sorry but you were wrong on this one.
You won't get my vote for man of the year.XavierBreath
New member
I started to call BS in post #14 after you claimed the police sided with you. That was pretty far fetched. I just could not see that happening.
Then when you claimed to be a 50 year old man with a moniker of "new master" that was rather odd.
I give you a bit of credit for coming clean on your deceit, but deceit it is. There is nothing redeeming about it, and nothing learned. Instead it violated people's trust, including my own. I did not call you a liar when I should have. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I should have withheld it.
You owe this forum an apology.
I'm divided on this.
On the one hand we have a very interesting scenario and on the other, downright deceit.
Got to admit that it did get everyone talking, yes?
edited to add: The deceit outweighs the good, however. Perhaps the thread should just languish. An ignoble death.
On the one hand we have a very interesting scenario and on the other, downright deceit.
Got to admit that it did get everyone talking, yes?
edited to add: The deceit outweighs the good, however. Perhaps the thread should just languish. An ignoble death.
riverrat66
New member
Absolutely despicable!
This guy could have got everyone "talking" just by stating it was a scenario and asked everyone what they would have done in that position. Lots of posters do it everyday and don't have to lie about it.
When someone posts something just to get someone's reaction or start a controversy that person is called a troll and usually not very welcome. I for one will add this guy to my ignore list. If you notice I refuse to even mention his name again and I stuck up for this liar. I think is was a low down dirty thing to do. Absolutely despicable!
This guy could have got everyone "talking" just by stating it was a scenario and asked everyone what they would have done in that position. Lots of posters do it everyday and don't have to lie about it.
When someone posts something just to get someone's reaction or start a controversy that person is called a troll and usually not very welcome. I for one will add this guy to my ignore list. If you notice I refuse to even mention his name again and I stuck up for this liar. I think is was a low down dirty thing to do. Absolutely despicable!
Savage10FP308
Moderator
Specifically to steelheart and riverrat...
I don't know what I am talking about? "I am calling a big BS on Newmasters story! It just doesn't happen this way." "Those of you who are telling him to sue without knowing the full story are just plain ignorant!" You know what, you guys are right!
This story wasn't total BS! And there was pleanty of information to tell him he should sue! We got about 1% of the needed information from his fabricated story. How can you make any assumptions on this? I stated he wasn't being fully truthful from the beginning. Anyways newmaster, since steelheart and riverrat "have a clue", you should take their advice and sue you imaginary security officer for everything he's worth!
"When someone posts something just to get someone's reaction or start a controversy that person is called a troll and usually not very welcome."
"And Savage, he doesn't have a clue!"
Good advice rat!
I don't know what I am talking about? "I am calling a big BS on Newmasters story! It just doesn't happen this way." "Those of you who are telling him to sue without knowing the full story are just plain ignorant!" You know what, you guys are right!
This story wasn't total BS! And there was pleanty of information to tell him he should sue! We got about 1% of the needed information from his fabricated story. How can you make any assumptions on this? I stated he wasn't being fully truthful from the beginning. Anyways newmaster, since steelheart and riverrat "have a clue", you should take their advice and sue you imaginary security officer for everything he's worth!"When someone posts something just to get someone's reaction or start a controversy that person is called a troll and usually not very welcome."
"And Savage, he doesn't have a clue!"
Good advice rat!
- Status