Best Buy secruity guard jumps on felon from fleeing from cops in parking lot, promptly gets fired

rojo wrote:

what has happened to our society? wrote:

I don't. Why has it become so difficult to police crime in this country?

Most cities now tell the police to not chase suspects in cars as the danger to pedestrians/other cars is great. Just the other day near me there was like an multi state chase and a baby ended up injured on the highway (criminal is still free) and the parents are irate.

What is the penalty for fleeing arrest? I think it should be an automatic 5 or10 years to the sentence. Like if you are convicted, even for 1 year, you get 6 or 11.

In my city some bum threatened a bus driver because he wanted to ride the bus and didn't want to pay the fare.

The city's response was that now bus drivers are only supposed to ask riders to pay once, and if they refuse, let them go on anyway. What a mess.

They should have given him a free ride to the local jail, crack down and arrest anyone else who tries to bum a ride. Behavior will be cleaned up immediately.

Tired of bending over backwards to protect the "rights" of criminals.

You in DC?

what has happened to our society? wrote:

In my city some bum threatened a bus driver because he wanted to ride the bus and didn't want to pay the fare.

The city's response was that now bus drivers are only supposed to ask riders to pay once, and if they refuse, let them go on anyway. What a mess.

They should have given him a free ride to the local jail, crack down and arrest anyone else who tries to bum a ride. Behavior will be cleaned up immediately.

Tired of bending over backwards to protect the "rights" of criminals.

DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. - Police are investigating a deadly shooting at a DeKalb County Family Dollar store. Police say that a man walked into the store on 7042 Covington Highway this morning and pulled a gun on two employees. While the suspect was getting money from an employee, a customer shot the man, police said.

The suspect later died. The customer who shot and killed the gunman will not be charged, police said.

Police told Regan the clerk was badly shaken by what happened but appreciative to the customer who put a stop to the armed robbery by taking out the threat. "She's upset. She's dealing with coporate right now... but she's fine," an official told us.

rojo wrote:

Most cities now tell the police to not chase suspects in cars as the danger to pedestrians/other cars is great. Just the other day near me there was like an multi state chase and a baby ended up injured on the highway (criminal is still free) and the parents are irate.

What is the penalty for fleeing arrest? I think it should be an automatic 5 or10 years to the sentence. Like if you are convicted, even for 1 year, you get 6 or 11.

Flight being evidence of guilt has gone out of fashion at least since OJ.

dccesspool wrote:

You in DC?

what has happened to our society? wrote:

In my city some bum threatened a bus driver because he wanted to ride the bus and didn't want to pay the fare.

The city's response was that now bus drivers are only supposed to ask riders to pay once, and if they refuse, let them go on anyway. What a mess.

They should have given him a free ride to the local jail, crack down and arrest anyone else who tries to bum a ride. Behavior will be cleaned up immediately.

Tired of bending over backwards to protect the "rights" of criminals.

No, West Coast, but I'm sure similar things happened elsewhere

malmo wrote:

Rojo, the world has been turned upside down. The security guard did the right thing.

While in college, I had a job as a security job for a major department store. One early evening a store detective signaled me to stop a guy who was running at full speed towards the door. Me, weighing maybe a buck 30 at the time, immediately deduced that I would be crushed but I could run him down from behind once outside. Sure enough, dumbazs me in great shape, heads out the door after the guy and let him run himself out. He certainly wasn't going to tire me out. My youthful exuberance never gave thought to the guy having any sort of weapon. We ended up about half a mile from the door we ran from and across a major thoroughfare. The detectives ended up trailing me to wear the guy had thrown the towel in exhausted and they brought him back to the store. Hero right? This was 40 years ago.

Nope. I was told in no uncertain terms to not leave the store to go after a shoplifter. The detective never was spoken to about having me, I guess, throw my body into the fleeing shoplifter before he was officially on the lam.

Smoove wrote:

in most jurisdictions, detaining someone in a parking lot would be fine. But employers normally will limit their policy so it allows only for detainment within the store. They do this for a few reasons.

Where are these jurisdictions you're claiming someone can be charged with shoplifting when they haven't even left the building? Until they leave, they're just walking around the store with an item just like any other shopper.

The only sensible reason for stores to accost people inside the door is to get them to foolishly confess their intent, and use that as a pretext to kick them out, which is about all they legally can do. Shoplifting itself is too difficult to prove, as all elements of it must be witnessed. If your store sells bananas, and you see someone waltz toward the door with an armload of bananas but you didn't see them pick up the bananas (and carry them all the way to the door with no switcheroo for legal bananas), you can't legally use force to detain them. But you can use trickery, like Walmart with its dastardly "receipt checkers."

What if you pass by the sensors near the doors and set them off but haven't left the store?

In that case, you can be detained by the merchant but still be in the store. Florida codifies this:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0812/Sections/0812.015.html

Stuffing something down your pants without leaving the store? Can't find a statute or case law on that without a more comprehensive search. But I'd be surprised if you couldn't detain someone for purposes of recovering the items.

Laws are vague. Crooks often say they put the item in their purse/bag just for carrying it. Laws mention "implied consent" or some such weaselterm, and the ubiquitous "reasonable" commonly appears too.

OTOH, in VA and other places, One must have the intent to take the item from the store, however, many states consider the act of concealing merchandise to be evidence of intent. (perhaps in conjunction with heading for the exit whilst avoiding the payment lane)

§ 18.2-103. Concealing or taking possession of merchandise; ...

... The willful concealment of goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment, while still on the premises thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to convert and defraud the owner thereof out of the value of the goods or merchandise.

MA: Shoplifting by Concealing Merchandise, Criminal Defense Lawyers, Brockton - In MA you do not have to take merchandise out of the store in order to be found guilty of a shoplifting crime; the prosecutor only has to show the defendant removed the merchandise from the display or shelf and concealed it.

IA: Similarly, an appellate court in Iowa has found that concealment of unpurchased items is material evidence of an individual's "intent to deprive" element under Iowa Code Section 714.5, even if a person relinquished the unpurchased merchandise prior to exiting the store

CO: Rather, concealing unpurchased goods while you are in a store is evidence of your intent to steal such goods. 1 It can be used as a basis to charge you with the Colorado crime of shoplifting / theft under 18-4-401 C.R.S. under Colorado law the merchant or store employees may detain the person once an item is concealed.

Kentucky Shoplifting Laws 433.234 Shoplifting (1) Willful concealment of unpurchased merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment on the premises of such store shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to deprive the owner of his property without paying the purchase price therefor.

http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/what-we-do/learning-resource-center/shoplifting-laws-by-state/

Those jurisdictions Bad Wigins.

This is the counterintuitive truth about crime:

1) The best way to make people obey laws is social pressure, not strict enforcement

2) In many cases, enforcing a minor law is more dangerous/expensive than letting it go

3) The punishment for a minor/moderate offense rarely has a positive effect on the criminal's future effect on society

So it sucks, and it's hard to get your head around it, and it's really hard for some "tough on crime" people to get their heads around it, but the best way to stop people from doing something bad is:

a) Make it illegal

b) Enforce it just enough and make the punishment just harsh enough that a reasonable person would know to stay clear

c) Make doing the bad thing a social taboo

I would never shoplift, and it's not because I'd get caught. I wouldn't. It's because there is a small risk I'd get caught and it would ruin my life, and because I'm not the "kind of person who shoplifts". I wouldn't try to sneak/force my way on the bus for the same reason.

The converse to all this is that you have to realize that some people will break the law and get away with it. They shouldn't get away with it. The guy who forced his way on the bus shouldn't get to ride the bus. He should be fined as well. But what are you going to do--make everyone sit there while you call the cops away from more important stuff? No, that's stupid. And if you don't do a good job on a)-c) above, people will start ignoring the law (like speeding). But if you do a good job, only a few people will break the law, they won't have a big effect, and it's more trouble than it's worth to stop them.

It sucks when someone gets away with something they shouldn't. It's unfair. But the people who commit most of these low-level crimes don't tend to have great or glamorous lives, so it's not like people will be "drawn" to that. On the other hand, overzealous enforcement tends to really hurt people and hurt communities.

It's always a balance, and it doesn't feel good, but this is the reason for all these "nonsensical" rules.

^ TL,dr: It's the ancient debate about justice versus order.

Poster #543 wrote:

Guy violated policy, that's that. While I agree it's ridiculous, you've got also got to follow the rules. The real question is what are they paid to do then? Or at least, why are they labeled 'security guard' when they could just be a regular blueshirt if they can't physically do anything?

Just to keep an eye out and be an inhibitional presence I suppose. One retail place I use to work had an overweight senor citizen man do security there. He could barely walk and was sitting on the pation furniture on display most of the time but he got up every once in awhile and skidded and hobbled up and down the main aisle so you could see the "SECURITY" on the back of his shirt.

Nice thoughtful post.

reason for these rules wrote:

It's always a balance, and it doesn't feel good, but this is the reason for all these "nonsensical" rules.

nicely done wrote:

Nice thoughtful post.

I agree. That was awesome.

dunes runner wrote:

reason for these rules wrote:

It's always a balance, and it doesn't feel good, but this is the reason for all these "nonsensical" rules.

nicely done wrote:

Nice thoughtful post.

I agree. That was awesome.

Yes, thank you. Maybe good views do drive out bad ones.

1) The best way to make people obey laws is social pressure, not strict enforcement

2) In many cases, enforcing a minor law is more dangerous/expensive than letting it go

3) The punishment for a minor/moderate offense rarely has a positive effect on the criminal's future effect on society

Yes, the basics of modern "criminology" from the safe white castles of the West.

Typically, none of its proponents ever have to live with its consequences.

It's about as dumb as usual European shoulder-shrug when you are robbed: "You have insurance, what do you care?"