Wal-Mart security kills man who stole BB Gun and diapers
- Thread starter P95loser
- Start date
- Status
Ryder
Member
How did he get in the store without a shirt? That isn't done around here. Where did he hide the diapers? Those are huge packages. BB guns and ammo laying out where anyone can access them without assistance? Something doesn't add up.
I don't see any details describing the circumstances prior him leaving the store. It's quite possible he paid for his goods at the sporting goods register and these superheros made a big goof.
I've run into a very few innocents that magnetically suck you in to wanting to hurt them. I've never hurt anybody that didn't deserve it yet I have felt the pull. It's an odd force that requires a strong willpower to resist. Can't imagine how much harder the need to justify your pay would make it.
I don't see any details describing the circumstances prior him leaving the store. It's quite possible he paid for his goods at the sporting goods register and these superheros made a big goof.
I've run into a very few innocents that magnetically suck you in to wanting to hurt them. I've never hurt anybody that didn't deserve it yet I have felt the pull. It's an odd force that requires a strong willpower to resist. Can't imagine how much harder the need to justify your pay would make it.
No_Brakes23
Member
I learned today that Target has a no chase policy.
Bet they are pretty glad about that right now.
And in Yuma, AZ, I saw folks in the Wal-Mart shirtless.
But I agree, where the hell do you hide all those diapers with no shirt?
Bet they are pretty glad about that right now.
Even here in ultra careful Cali, the BBs and guns are where anyone can get to them.
And in Yuma, AZ, I saw folks in the Wal-Mart shirtless.
But I agree, where the hell do you hide all those diapers with no shirt?
Gah....
not gonna read this whole thread...
Just as one must consider that had one not broke into said house and got shot...
one must consider that had one NOT decided to shoplift from said store and something REDICULOUS like this happen... it wouldn't have happened....
I mean seriously... i don't give private walmart wonder-cops the authority to do stuff... but at the same time... the wondercops aren't chasing down people who walked in and purchased someting normally... acted normally when the damn beeper thing goes off and they verify that yea you DID buy what just went beep etc... and walked out the door.... give responsibility where its due... if the person didn't commit the crime.. it woudln't be an issue how "harsh the wally world cops were".... once again ... not saying they might have done things differently... just saying the TRUE responsibility for that mans death lays on his own hands and bone and blood... cause if he'd been doing the right thing... it would never have happened...
I know its simply too obvious a fact to feed most of you.. but if the guy hadn't stole something - he wouldn't be dead.... if he'd had a job and bought the stuff he wanted to buy and walked out the door like a normal person... he wouldn't be dead... but i guess that is way TOO much of a leap of logic for most to handle....
:banghead:
J/Tharg!
not gonna read this whole thread...
Just as one must consider that had one not broke into said house and got shot...
one must consider that had one NOT decided to shoplift from said store and something REDICULOUS like this happen... it wouldn't have happened....
I mean seriously... i don't give private walmart wonder-cops the authority to do stuff... but at the same time... the wondercops aren't chasing down people who walked in and purchased someting normally... acted normally when the damn beeper thing goes off and they verify that yea you DID buy what just went beep etc... and walked out the door.... give responsibility where its due... if the person didn't commit the crime.. it woudln't be an issue how "harsh the wally world cops were".... once again ... not saying they might have done things differently... just saying the TRUE responsibility for that mans death lays on his own hands and bone and blood... cause if he'd been doing the right thing... it would never have happened...
I know its simply too obvious a fact to feed most of you.. but if the guy hadn't stole something - he wouldn't be dead.... if he'd had a job and bought the stuff he wanted to buy and walked out the door like a normal person... he wouldn't be dead... but i guess that is way TOO much of a leap of logic for most to handle....
:banghead:
J/Tharg!
Aguila Blanca
Member
I wasn't going to join this fray, but I will. I wish to remind all that the Constitution says we are innocent until proven guilty. This man did not have his day in court and has not been proven guilty.
How, indeed, did he conceal a package of diapers and a BB gun? Consider that perhaps he did NOT conceal them. Perhaps, like every other Wal-Mart shopper, he walked out the door with them. And perhaps (just "perhaps") the checkout clerk failed to deactivate the security dongle on the BB gun package, setting off the alarm at the exit.
Now, how many of you all who are gloating that the "thief" (unproven allegation) got what he deserved are among those who in other threads right here on The High Road have stated flat-out that when the alarm goes off, you WON'T stop, you WON'T let gramps at the door look in your bag, and you basically dare the LP guys to lay a hand on you?
Well, consider the possibility that that was also this guy's mindset. Isn't it at least possible that he didn't bother to conceal the stuff because, hey, he PAID for it. And maybe he was in a hurry and didn't feel like letting somone poke through the bags HE knew he had paid for.
Sound familiar, anyone?
All situations cut both ways. We all know those secuity tags are not flawless. Who here hasn't had at least one incident of having the alarm go off after paying for something? Those of you who adopt a militant anti-mall ninja attitude should consider that perhaps that guy who died on the hot pavement is you. And his widow will be doing exactly what you calim you would do -- suing the pants off the store.
The Constitution applies to everyone, people. Even fat guys with no shirt are entitled to due process.
How, indeed, did he conceal a package of diapers and a BB gun? Consider that perhaps he did NOT conceal them. Perhaps, like every other Wal-Mart shopper, he walked out the door with them. And perhaps (just "perhaps") the checkout clerk failed to deactivate the security dongle on the BB gun package, setting off the alarm at the exit.
Now, how many of you all who are gloating that the "thief" (unproven allegation) got what he deserved are among those who in other threads right here on The High Road have stated flat-out that when the alarm goes off, you WON'T stop, you WON'T let gramps at the door look in your bag, and you basically dare the LP guys to lay a hand on you?
Well, consider the possibility that that was also this guy's mindset. Isn't it at least possible that he didn't bother to conceal the stuff because, hey, he PAID for it. And maybe he was in a hurry and didn't feel like letting somone poke through the bags HE knew he had paid for.
Sound familiar, anyone?
All situations cut both ways. We all know those secuity tags are not flawless. Who here hasn't had at least one incident of having the alarm go off after paying for something? Those of you who adopt a militant anti-mall ninja attitude should consider that perhaps that guy who died on the hot pavement is you. And his widow will be doing exactly what you calim you would do -- suing the pants off the store.
The Constitution applies to everyone, people. Even fat guys with no shirt are entitled to due process.
scbair
Member
Well, OK; let's say a cop flashes his blue lights behind you. You KNOW you weren't speeding, didn't commit any other infraction,. all lights, etc. are working properly.
So . . . you refuse to stop; you continue to drive, distracted by the lights in your mirror. You veer off the roadway & are injured as Camaro meets culvert.
Gotta be the cop's fault, huh?
Some still unanswered questions:
1) Why were the security folks after him? (I mean, the exact circumstances; seen leaving without paying, alarm set off, etc.).
2) Exactly how did he resist? Try to flee, struggle to escape, swing at the pursuers, other?
3) What was his drug/alcohol level?
4) Any pre-existing conditions? I mean, let's consider: The alarm sounds as a guy walks pas it; security guard says, "Excuse me, but I need to inspect your receipt and the contents of your shopping bag." Customer has a bad heart and a fear of security guards; collapses and dies. We gonna blame the guard? (PLease don't cite the "felony murder" rule; it only applies to those engaged in commission of a felony. The security guard's actions in my example don't qualify.).
If you're gonna believe the newspaper and the attorney/witness, OK, but don't expect me to blindly accept their accounts.
So . . . you refuse to stop; you continue to drive, distracted by the lights in your mirror. You veer off the roadway & are injured as Camaro meets culvert.
Gotta be the cop's fault, huh?
Some still unanswered questions:
1) Why were the security folks after him? (I mean, the exact circumstances; seen leaving without paying, alarm set off, etc.).
2) Exactly how did he resist? Try to flee, struggle to escape, swing at the pursuers, other?
3) What was his drug/alcohol level?
4) Any pre-existing conditions? I mean, let's consider: The alarm sounds as a guy walks pas it; security guard says, "Excuse me, but I need to inspect your receipt and the contents of your shopping bag." Customer has a bad heart and a fear of security guards; collapses and dies. We gonna blame the guard? (PLease don't cite the "felony murder" rule; it only applies to those engaged in commission of a felony. The security guard's actions in my example don't qualify.).
If you're gonna believe the newspaper and the attorney/witness, OK, but don't expect me to blindly accept their accounts.
entropy
Member
I sure hope so. Or I'm SOL on most summer days.
atk
Member
scbair,
Your analogy isn't correct. First, (unless I missed it) the security guards were not sworn law enforcement officers. The police officer has the legal priviledge of requiring you to pull over. Non LEOs cannot require that (application of force notwithstanding). Second, the accused theif didn't kill himself, which would be similar to running his own car off the road - the security guards killed him.
So, to improve your analogy, try this:
You're driving out of a private lot, and some security vehicle comes out after you, green lights flashing. You paid for your parking, and you know that there's no other reason the security guard may be following you, so you continue on your way.
The security vehicle chases you down, and spins your vehicle out, causing you to crash. You're injured, but it's not necessarially life threatening. But, the security guard doesn't want you to escape, so he gets out of his vehicle, and pins you in yours. Unfortunately for you, he pins you right on a sharp piece of glass, which digs into your chest, slipping neatly between your ribs.
There's a bystander who sees the blood, and pleads with the guards to call an ambulance. Or to at least let you off the glass. The guards refuse, continuing to pin you against the glass, and continuing to push it towards your lungs.
When you die of internal bleeding, or suffocation, is it your fault, or the security guard's fault?
Your analogy isn't correct. First, (unless I missed it) the security guards were not sworn law enforcement officers. The police officer has the legal priviledge of requiring you to pull over. Non LEOs cannot require that (application of force notwithstanding). Second, the accused theif didn't kill himself, which would be similar to running his own car off the road - the security guards killed him.
So, to improve your analogy, try this:
You're driving out of a private lot, and some security vehicle comes out after you, green lights flashing. You paid for your parking, and you know that there's no other reason the security guard may be following you, so you continue on your way.
The security vehicle chases you down, and spins your vehicle out, causing you to crash. You're injured, but it's not necessarially life threatening. But, the security guard doesn't want you to escape, so he gets out of his vehicle, and pins you in yours. Unfortunately for you, he pins you right on a sharp piece of glass, which digs into your chest, slipping neatly between your ribs.
There's a bystander who sees the blood, and pleads with the guards to call an ambulance. Or to at least let you off the glass. The guards refuse, continuing to pin you against the glass, and continuing to push it towards your lungs.
When you die of internal bleeding, or suffocation, is it your fault, or the security guard's fault?
docfubar
Member
Some states DO have a thing called citizens arrest in which security guards can apprehend and detain a suspect.
People keep omparing security guards to LEO's but we all know they are different. If the Guards screwed up let them pay!!!!!!
I already said it sounds like they went overboard so I am not taking their side.
People keep omparing security guards to LEO's but we all know they are different. If the Guards screwed up let them pay!!!!!!
I already said it sounds like they went overboard so I am not taking their side.
It can happen. I've seen it. I witnessed a shirtless, shoeless fellow attempt to make a purchase at ~12am. (Goodness knows why I was up at that hour...)
This chap put up quite a fuss when he was denied the ability to pay for his can of red beets. He left the store when every cashier began tracking his movements in a blatant manner via handheld radios.
This particular Wal-Mart was situated in, and catered to, the "gorgeous mosaic" portion of town. If the aforementioned event could happen, it will happen at that store. Probabilities matter. I am rarely disappointed when I bank on them.
TM
No_Brakes23
Member
Nearly every single time I go to Wally world the alarm goes off. I never stop. Screw 'em.
scbair
Member
Sorry, atk, but a security guard (at least in the jurisdictions with which I am familiar) has as much right as any LEO to apprehend a shoplifter (and to use necessary force to do so).
By resisting (whether running/fighting or attempting to outrun a pursuing vehicle), some unpleasant outcomes become likely (injury in a fall, tackle, or traffic collision). Again, there are too many unanswered questions to decide who was at fault (or who was MOSTLY at fault), but a lot of crooks gat injured just being... well ... crooks! Then, of course, it's always someone else's fault.
I'm not trying to exonerate the security personnel, but I do know how hard it can be to subdue & apprehend a violently resisting "large" male suspect. I can think of a couple of instances that resulted in one on his face, hands twisted & cuffed, and me re-thinking my career choices. If any of those arrestees had made a committed effort to get back to their feet, I'd likely have protested vigorously!
But, of course, his family states he was a nice guy, and would never resist arrest (or steal, or . . .). The attorney/witness, I'm sure, would never take a position or make a statement for the primary purpose of gaining free publicity or notoriety! Even if he's describing what he observed, I question the accuracy. Until you've been in the middle of a violent apprehension, you really have no concept that some fancy wristlock/compliance hold just may NOT work exactly as you were taught it would (assuming you've had any real training).
By resisting (whether running/fighting or attempting to outrun a pursuing vehicle), some unpleasant outcomes become likely (injury in a fall, tackle, or traffic collision). Again, there are too many unanswered questions to decide who was at fault (or who was MOSTLY at fault), but a lot of crooks gat injured just being... well ... crooks! Then, of course, it's always someone else's fault.
I'm not trying to exonerate the security personnel, but I do know how hard it can be to subdue & apprehend a violently resisting "large" male suspect. I can think of a couple of instances that resulted in one on his face, hands twisted & cuffed, and me re-thinking my career choices. If any of those arrestees had made a committed effort to get back to their feet, I'd likely have protested vigorously!
But, of course, his family states he was a nice guy, and would never resist arrest (or steal, or . . .). The attorney/witness, I'm sure, would never take a position or make a statement for the primary purpose of gaining free publicity or notoriety! Even if he's describing what he observed, I question the accuracy. Until you've been in the middle of a violent apprehension, you really have no concept that some fancy wristlock/compliance hold just may NOT work exactly as you were taught it would (assuming you've had any real training).
So, he deserved it, interesting. He did the crime, not the LP fault that he is dead, no, it his fault for stealing. What a load of crap. Once someone is in custody, by what ever agency, LP or whatever, they are responsible for the welfare of the person in custody. Cause you see, that person, who did shoplift has the same rights that we do, the same rights that the LP guys do, the same rights that police officers do.
This "if he did not steal it, he would not have been killed is a crock. And it shows just how you look at Civil Rights, Hope, for everyones sake, that you are not in LE.
atk
Member
docfubar,
Yes, there is citizen's arrest. However, I know of no law that requires a citizen to submit to another citizen, simply because I'm told to. On the other hand, I undertand that it's illegal to fail to "obey a lawful order" of a police officer.
Just trying to point out the disparity between police and security guards
Yes, there is citizen's arrest. However, I know of no law that requires a citizen to submit to another citizen, simply because I'm told to. On the other hand, I undertand that it's illegal to fail to "obey a lawful order" of a police officer.
Just trying to point out the disparity between police and security guards
atk
Member
scbair,
I'm surprised that in South Carolina all security guards are given equal powers to LEOs. Can you cite the statute for me?
If they do, in fact, have the same legal authority as LEOs, and the guy knew they were after him, then, yes, he should have submitted. I just find it hard to believe the premise *grin*.
See, my problem is that I don't think they had the authority to detain him. If they don't have the authority, then everything after the unauthorized detention is unauthorized, and any complications are the responsibility of the detainers.
I don't know if your statement was aimed at me, but I haven't faulted them for how they detained the guy: I question their authority to do so.
The analogy correction was because security guards are different from LEOs, unless they are sworn LEOs, making any equality between security guards and LEOs incorrect (until you provide me with that citation )
I'm surprised that in South Carolina all security guards are given equal powers to LEOs. Can you cite the statute for me?
If they do, in fact, have the same legal authority as LEOs, and the guy knew they were after him, then, yes, he should have submitted. I just find it hard to believe the premise *grin*.
See, my problem is that I don't think they had the authority to detain him. If they don't have the authority, then everything after the unauthorized detention is unauthorized, and any complications are the responsibility of the detainers.
I don't know if your statement was aimed at me, but I haven't faulted them for how they detained the guy: I question their authority to do so.
The analogy correction was because security guards are different from LEOs, unless they are sworn LEOs, making any equality between security guards and LEOs incorrect (until you provide me with that citation
)JohnBT
Member
Good thing they caught him in the parking lot and not a local diner because if they caught him in the local diner they might have held him face down on the grill and killed him. Oh, waitaminute, nevermind...
John
John
docfubar
Member
atk: I don't know how it is in Texas but in California you can refer to
PC490.5 For how a merchant CAN LEGALLY detain a shoplifter.
490.5.(f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for
the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises.
(2) In making the detention a merchant, theater owner, or a person
employed by a library facility may use a reasonable amount of
nondeadly force necessary to protect himself or herself and to
prevent escape of the person detained or the loss of tangible or
intangible property.
(3) During the period of detention any items which a merchant or
theater owner, or any items which a person employed by a library
facility has probable cause to believe are unlawfully taken from the
premises of the merchant or library facility, or recorded on theater
premises, and which are in plain view may be examined by the
merchant, theater owner, or person employed by a library facility for
the purposes of ascertaining the ownership thereof.
(4) A merchant, theater owner, a person employed by a library
facility, or an agent thereof, having probable cause to believe the
person detained was attempting to unlawfully take or has taken any
item from the premises, or was attempting to operate a video
recording device within the premises of a motion picture theater
without the authority of the owner of the theater, may request the
person detained to voluntarily surrender the item or recording.
Should the person detained refuse to surrender the recording or item
of which there is probable cause to believe has been recorded on or
unlawfully taken from the premises, or attempted to be recorded or
unlawfully taken from the premises, a limited and reasonable search
may be conducted by those authorized to make the detention in order
to recover the item. Only packages, shopping bags, handbags or other
property in the immediate possession of the person detained, but not
including any clothing worn by the person, may be searched pursuant
to this subdivision. Upon surrender or discovery of the item, the
person detained may also be requested, but may not be required, to
provide adequate proof of his or her true identity.
The red highlighted area I made stand out, and as I said I do not support the actions of the LPs covered in the news article.
PC490.5 For how a merchant CAN LEGALLY detain a shoplifter.
490.5.(f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for
the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises.
(2) In making the detention a merchant, theater owner, or a person
employed by a library facility may use a reasonable amount of
nondeadly force necessary to protect himself or herself and to
prevent escape of the person detained or the loss of tangible or
intangible property.
(3) During the period of detention any items which a merchant or
theater owner, or any items which a person employed by a library
facility has probable cause to believe are unlawfully taken from the
premises of the merchant or library facility, or recorded on theater
premises, and which are in plain view may be examined by the
merchant, theater owner, or person employed by a library facility for
the purposes of ascertaining the ownership thereof.
(4) A merchant, theater owner, a person employed by a library
facility, or an agent thereof, having probable cause to believe the
person detained was attempting to unlawfully take or has taken any
item from the premises, or was attempting to operate a video
recording device within the premises of a motion picture theater
without the authority of the owner of the theater, may request the
person detained to voluntarily surrender the item or recording.
Should the person detained refuse to surrender the recording or item
of which there is probable cause to believe has been recorded on or
unlawfully taken from the premises, or attempted to be recorded or
unlawfully taken from the premises, a limited and reasonable search
may be conducted by those authorized to make the detention in order
to recover the item. Only packages, shopping bags, handbags or other
property in the immediate possession of the person detained, but not
including any clothing worn by the person, may be searched pursuant
to this subdivision. Upon surrender or discovery of the item, the
person detained may also be requested, but may not be required, to
provide adequate proof of his or her true identity.
The red highlighted area I made stand out, and as I said I do not support the actions of the LPs covered in the news article.
No_Brakes23
Member
Damn, docfubar.
Just when I think Cali laws can't get anymore effed up, I discover some new fold.
I don't believe that I should be subject to that law, however.
I usually don't show the reciept when I leave places like Wal-Mat, Best Buy, Fry's, etc. If they have that big of a problem with theft, then they need to change their security. CostCo is very bad about this. I almost got into an altercation over toilet paper once.
Just when I think Cali laws can't get anymore effed up, I discover some new fold.
I don't believe that I should be subject to that law, however.
I usually don't show the reciept when I leave places like Wal-Mat, Best Buy, Fry's, etc. If they have that big of a problem with theft, then they need to change their security. CostCo is very bad about this. I almost got into an altercation over toilet paper once.
Although that California statute AUTHORIZES a merchant to make a detention, the merchant is still not on the level of a sworn LEO. Note there is no law criminalizing the detainee from resisting the arrest.
Note also that the merchant is authorized to use REASONABLE force - and that's the question here: were the actions of the LP folks reasonable?
I submit they were not.....
I pity the LP who lays hands on me; they may get a forcible rectal return of the legally paid for merchandise, then I'll sue them and take their savings, future income, home, car, personal property and kids' video games.
Note also that the merchant is authorized to use REASONABLE force - and that's the question here: were the actions of the LP folks reasonable?
I submit they were not.....
I pity the LP who lays hands on me; they may get a forcible rectal return of the legally paid for merchandise, then I'll sue them and take their savings, future income, home, car, personal property and kids' video games.
Actually its called "assault". In fact, assault in the furtherance or another crime (shoplifting) would become felony assault.
Merchants have as much right to secure their property as anyone else. If you have the right to run down some guy for stealing your wallet, then so do they. A number of states actually specify that any *necessary* amount of force to prevent the theft is legal. A lot of people dont realize that a private person often has more freedom to use force when protecting their property or property under their protection than law enforcement.
atk
Member
Thank you for the clarification of CA law.
Now, since they have the authority to use reasonable force, (as DCR points out) the next question is, "was the force reasonable?" Or, maybe it's, "was there reason to believe force was necessary?"
Scanning over the thread, the article (post 1), I see no reason to believe force was necessary, or even that a robbery was taking place. The story begins with a man being chased out of a store.
I see no updates to the story.
So, we haven't even seen evidence that the man was actually robbing anyone. (For all those that will immediately assume that I am saying "there fore the security guards are EEEEEeeeeevilllllll", I'm not. Pointing out a lack of evidence doesn't imply proof of the opposite point of view. It's just a lack of evidence, which would require a reasonable person to withold judgement until evidence - either proving or disproving that which is in question - is provided). Maybe he was running to his car, because he didn't want to be caught out of air conditioning for too long. Maybe he got a phone call from his wife, at the hostpital, saying his daughter had just been admitted for a life threatening injury. Or, maybe he was threatened by one of the security guards, because the guard had a grudge against him. Or, maybe he was trying to escape with his highly valuable items.
But, I see no evidence of any of that. And I'd like to see evidence proving or disproving that there was an actual theft involved (I got the impression from the story that there was a _suspected_ theft, but I didn't catch where it stated there was _definitely_ a theft).
Does anyone have any updates - esp. from more reputable sources than a newspaper?
Now, since they have the authority to use reasonable force, (as DCR points out) the next question is, "was the force reasonable?" Or, maybe it's, "was there reason to believe force was necessary?"
Scanning over the thread, the article (post 1), I see no reason to believe force was necessary, or even that a robbery was taking place. The story begins with a man being chased out of a store.
I see no updates to the story.
So, we haven't even seen evidence that the man was actually robbing anyone. (For all those that will immediately assume that I am saying "there fore the security guards are EEEEEeeeeevilllllll", I'm not. Pointing out a lack of evidence doesn't imply proof of the opposite point of view. It's just a lack of evidence, which would require a reasonable person to withold judgement until evidence - either proving or disproving that which is in question - is provided). Maybe he was running to his car, because he didn't want to be caught out of air conditioning for too long. Maybe he got a phone call from his wife, at the hostpital, saying his daughter had just been admitted for a life threatening injury. Or, maybe he was threatened by one of the security guards, because the guard had a grudge against him. Or, maybe he was trying to escape with his highly valuable items.
But, I see no evidence of any of that. And I'd like to see evidence proving or disproving that there was an actual theft involved (I got the impression from the story that there was a _suspected_ theft, but I didn't catch where it stated there was _definitely_ a theft).
Does anyone have any updates - esp. from more reputable sources than a newspaper?
Good point, c_yeager - there are many crimes where an assault in furtherance of another crime is yet another, often elevated crime. Note the statutes that are titled "assault with intent to commit XXX"
I guess my point was that the detainee cannot be charged with resisting arrest by LP folks (or a citizen's arrest, for that matter), as an individual would if resisting an LEO, and hence the LP folks are in no way on the same level as LEO's because there is no duty to surrender to the commands of LP folks. If LP folks had the same authority as LEO's, then the resisting detainee could be charged with resisting/obstructing, an assault or battery (depending on your jurisdiction and the acts committed), and, if guilty, the underlying theft. Because LP are not LEO's, though, all the detainee could be charged with would be the underlying theft (if guilty) and any assault/battery - but the assault/battery on the LP could be a tricky charge to convict on, depending on the facts of the situation (did the LP identify themselves as such, would a reasonable person believe them, did they grab before they announced who they were, would a reasonable person have feared for his safety from the folks claiming - either at the time or after the fact - to be LP, etc. ad nauseum)
Good points you made, and thanks for keeping the thread interesting.
DCR
I guess my point was that the detainee cannot be charged with resisting arrest by LP folks (or a citizen's arrest, for that matter), as an individual would if resisting an LEO, and hence the LP folks are in no way on the same level as LEO's because there is no duty to surrender to the commands of LP folks. If LP folks had the same authority as LEO's, then the resisting detainee could be charged with resisting/obstructing, an assault or battery (depending on your jurisdiction and the acts committed), and, if guilty, the underlying theft. Because LP are not LEO's, though, all the detainee could be charged with would be the underlying theft (if guilty) and any assault/battery - but the assault/battery on the LP could be a tricky charge to convict on, depending on the facts of the situation (did the LP identify themselves as such, would a reasonable person believe them, did they grab before they announced who they were, would a reasonable person have feared for his safety from the folks claiming - either at the time or after the fact - to be LP, etc. ad nauseum)
Good points you made, and thanks for keeping the thread interesting.
DCR
NineseveN
member
Wow, this thread is like that turd that just won't flush, I can't even believe some of the things I am reading here. What have you people done with the normal High Roaders?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
