Security guards VS Shoplifter

[kitbor]

Who think that it’s OK for security guards to physically harm shoplifters, think again.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=444c1745-179a-4204-9c9f-484fffeb34f9&p=2

[UrbanPoet]

what a fcuking bull shiet justice system we have.

edit:
Nm.... they kicked him in the face.
It'd be a different story if the shoplifter took a swipe @ the security guards tho...

[Kasakato]

Double click beside the title on the Off Topic splash page.

[Big Brother]

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=425751

Lots of discussion about security gaurds and their use of "reasonable force". Holding down and detain the suspect until police comes is reasonable. Kicking the suspect's face is not.

[weedb0y]

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=425751

Lots of discussion about security gaurds and their use of "reasonable force". Holding down and detain the suspect until police comes is reasonable. Kicking the suspect's face is not.

I hope that rent a cop wannabe dropout gets fired asap. I used to do security myself and honestly, its one thing to do a security job and one thing to power trip on ****** ass pay.

[abu_sme]

I worked for a company that was scared of making physical contact with perps for this reason.

[malaco0219]

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=425751

Lots of discussion about security gaurds and their use of "reasonable force". Holding down and detain the suspect until police comes is reasonable. Kicking the suspect's face is not.

+1
Well said. The only time I would actually use physical source is when the shop lifter already did some harm to me myself or another bystander. I was trained to avoid it until absolutely necessary.

[cwb27]

Who think that it’s OK for security guards to physically harm shoplifters, think again.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=444c1745-179a-4204-9c9f-484fffeb34f9&p=2


The main issue being addressed here is the application of excessive force.

If a guy starts swinging at a security guard then the security guard has a right to reasonably protect him/herself. It seems in this situation that the security guards applied excessive force that went over and above one's right to protect themself.

[Diamondog]

Shoplifter deserved it.....why do the laws protect criminal scum?

[bigdaddyyc]

Shoplifter deserved it.....why do the laws protect criminal scum?

shoplifter stole stuff, he'll get charged for it... the law is not protecting him from the crimes he's committed. But the security guard abused him, even if he is a shoplifter, he's protected as a citizen.

[cwb27]

shoplifter stole stuff, he'll get charged for it... the law is not protecting him from the crimes he's committed. But the security guard abused him, even if he is a shoplifter, he's protected as a citizen.

Even if he's not a citizen he's protected by Canadian Rights while he is in Canada.

[UrbanPoet]

it would suck if the shop lifter was being detained... and genuinely tried to whoop the security guards asses.

[gordholio]

Crazy, bloody "justice" system.
The judge found him (the thief) "remarkably forthright". Yeah, right.

[YnD]

Everyone remember this?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4aVbDpXd7A0

This was at Atrium downtown at the LCBO. This dude ended up causing LCBO to drop the undercover cop program and ensure all cops wear uniforms in the store. The undercover cop program actually saved them more money from theft.
Shoplifters deserve to burn.

Remember to laugh at the crybaby in the video.

[Diamondog]

shoplifter stole stuff, he'll get charged for it... the law is not protecting him from the crimes he's committed. But the security guard abused him, even if he is a shoplifter, he's protected as a citizen.

Bleeding heart, I have no problem with a security guard smacking around a criminal.

[nickia]

Abusing people is purely disgusting.:mad:

[GangStarr]

Bleeding heart, I have no problem with a security guard smacking around a criminal.

Suspected criminal, I suppose you support police brutality too?

[Spray]

I dont think anyone ever advocated kicking a guy in the face.

If a shoplifter ran from me, I would tackle and pin them. I never had to get to the point where I needed to throw punches, just an armlock or so.

And these werent "suspected" criminals. The code was you had to see them shoplift, and maintain 100% visual contact with them until they left to store, in case they decided to dump the merchandise before leaving. Because of the BS legal system and the mass tossing of lawsuits around, if we wern't 100% sure they were shoplifting, we didn't even try to pursue.

[Diamondog]

Abusing crimnals is purely disgusting :mad:....Do you like big boobs? Congratulation, you are extroverted!

And degrading women is even more disgusting!

[Nikita]

I dont think anyone ever advocated kicking a guy in the face.

If a shoplifter ran from me, I would tackle and pin them. I never had to get to the point where I needed to throw punches, just an armlock or so.

And these werent "suspected" criminals. The code was you had to see them shoplift, and maintain 100% visual contact with them until they left to store, in case they decided to dump the merchandise before leaving. Because of the BS legal system and the mass tossing of lawsuits around, if we wern't 100% sure they were shoplifting, we didn't even try to pursue.

Unless and until they were convicted in a court of law they are merely 'suspected criminals'...you do know the concept, innocent until proven guilty. And not proven guilty by you but by a court. And you may think you're always 100% sure...but that would make you not human. If you can't even admit that you make mistakes like every other human being on the face of the earth, you need a reality check.

[Irb]

Even if a security guard tackles someone and hold them down can't they be charged for forcible confinement? This what my friend told me when people stole from Walmart.

[Spray]

Well I never made a mistake so...It's not hard to see someone stuff $100 worth of merchandise on their person, and watch them exit the store without paying for it. I dunno about you, but I'm able to watch a person put five large electric razors in a backpack and walk out.

Like I said if I had any doubts whatsoever that the person dumped the merchandise, or I lost sight of them I'd just let them go. Besides you make sure that the person indeed has the merchandise, thats the first thing you check when you exit the store and apprehend them.

Security guards have the ability to make arrests and detain people until the police officers arrive. You can take them in the back room until they arrive, at that point you fill out the forms until the cops arrive, and decide if you want to charge and issue a tresspass notice on behalf of the store.

Unless and until they were convicted in a court of law they are merely 'suspected criminals'...you do know the concept, innocent until proven guilty. And not proven guilty by you but by a court. And you may think you're always 100% sure...but that would make you not human. If you can't even admit that you make mistakes like every other human being on the face of the earth, you need a reality check.

[GangStarr]

Even if a security guard tackles someone and hold them down can't they be charged for forcible confinement? This what my friend told me when people stole from Walmart.

Thats up to the judge and officers to decide. Theres a fine line between restraining someone under citizens arrest and forcible confinement. Theres a reason go police have cages in their cars. Really is up to the officers discretion. I think if they call the police immediately their pretty much clear.

Really comes down to the thief, I mean if the theif has some big shot lawyer uncle who was looking for a piece of walmart. Civil and potential criminal charges could come up at a later date should the officer decide a forcible confinement charge is not appropriate.

Really comes up down to the judge and officer. In the heat of the action, the officer, in court the Judge.

I too hate shoplifters. I am not sure how the court handles people diagnosed as kleptomaniacs. Its a real medical condition. People will steal the stupidest stuff just for some weird psychological disease.

You see these security guards need to behave like police, their goal is to subdue a suspect. If a theif uses force on an officer the officer will respond with appropriate force.

I have been watching a whole bunch of shoplifting videos, they should make kids watch those in the states.

I remember there was this one CRAZY security guard who was brought into Loblaws Empress Walk. This guy would stand around the upper ring and watch, I spoke with some other employees he said he was catching numerous people daily. Not plain clothed but pretty discrete. Saying many were the least you'd expect. A lot of older woman stealing cheese and other expensive small items.

Funny video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wje0cWQ7zUg

[Nikita]

Well I never made a mistake so...It's not hard to see someone stuff $100 worth of merchandise on their person, and watch them exit the store without paying for it. I dunno about you, but I'm able to watch a person put five large electric razors in a backpack and walk out.

Like I said if I had any doubts whatsoever that the person dumped the merchandise, or I lost sight of them I'd just let them go. Besides you make sure that the person indeed has the merchandise, thats the first thing you check when you exit the store and apprehend them.

Security guards have the ability to make arrests and detain people until the police officers arrive. You can take them in the back room until they arrive, at that point you fill out the forms until the cops arrive, and decide if you want to charge and issue a tresspass notice on behalf of the store.

But they don't have the right to search you or your bags. YOU have the right to demand police be called before you submit to a search and the search has to be done by police. So when these security people who do make mistakes (unlike the OP who doesn't...mmm hmmm...and must be insufferable if that's true) detain you, I suggest taking that course of action. Even if you never plan to do anything about thier mistake, they're will be a police record and a notation on the employee's record....and if you do want to sue for false arrest, assault, or anything else, you'll have documentation.
.

[Kasakato]

Well I never made a mistake so...It's not hard to see someone stuff $100 worth of merchandise on their person, and watch them exit the store without paying for it. I dunno about you, but I'm able to watch a person put five large electric razors in a backpack and walk out.

Like I said if I had any doubts whatsoever that the person dumped the merchandise, or I lost sight of them I'd just let them go. Besides you make sure that the person indeed has the merchandise, thats the first thing you check when you exit the store and apprehend them.

Security guards have the ability to make arrests and detain people until the police officers arrive. You can take them in the back room until they arrive, at that point you fill out the forms until the cops arrive, and decide if you want to charge and issue a tresspass notice on behalf of the store.

A security cannot arrest someone. They can only use reasonable force to keep someone from fleeing the scene until police arrive, and this all must be backed up with reasonable doubt.

[Kasakato]

But they don't have the right to search you or your bags. YOU have the right to demand police be called before you submit to a search and the search has to be done by police. So when these security people who do make mistakes (unlike the OP who doesn't...mmm hmmm...and must be insufferable if that's true) detain you, I suggest taking that course of action. Even if you never plan to do anything about thier mistake, they're will be a police record and a notation on the employee's record....and if you do want to sue for false arrest, assault, or anything else, you'll have documentation.
.
+1. This is what the charter of rights and freedom ensures anyone in Canada of.

[CheapScotsman]

so if I get this from the last couple of posts .... a security guard can detain you and prevent you from further "leaving", however

where does he get the right to search you?

where does he get the right to force you back into the store and into some back office?

[Spray]

Citizens arrest...

A security cannot arrest someone. They can only use reasonable force to keep someone from fleeing the scene until police arrive, and this all must be backed up with reasonable doubt.

[CheapScotsman]

Well, this handles my search question (and the "arrest" debate immediately above)

From "The Arrest Pocketbook, A guide to your rights" from the BC Civil Liberties Association (http://www.bccla.org/05pubs.htm)

The general public can make arrests in some situations.
They don’t have the same arrest powers as police.
The police don’t have to see you break the law to
arrest you. Members of the general public can only
arrest you if they actually see you commit an indictable
or hybrid offence or if they see you running away from
the police. People who own property can arrest you if
they see you doing something wrong related to their
property. They can’t arrest you for being intoxicated in a
public place, or for breach of the peace.
Although they may look like police, security guards
only have the same rights as regular people, listed
above. They can remove you from property they are
protecting, just like the person who owns the property
can remove you. They can only search you if you give
permission.
Citizens and security guards must hand you over to
the police as soon as possible after they have arrested
you. You are under no obligation to talk to these people.

[Kasakato]

Citizens arrest...

Its still not an "arrest" as you stated. Had you stated they could preform a citizens arrest, I would not said anything.

[Kasakato]

so if I get this from the last couple of posts .... a security guard can detain you and prevent you from further "leaving", however

where does he get the right to search you?

where does he get the right to force you back into the store and into some back office?

A person can only search you if you voluntary commit and give consent. The same goes for a police officer, unless they have reasonable doubt that you are lying about what you have with you, or after they formally arrest you.

They cannot force you into a back office. At most they can preform a citizens arrest, and hold you until police arrive. The whole can a citizen use reasonable force is really a gray area. A recent case was R. v. Asante-Mensah.

[malaco0219]

A person can only search you if you voluntary commit and give consent. The same goes for a police officer, unless they have reasonable doubt that you are lying about what you have with you, or after they formally arrest you.

They cannot force you into a back office. At most they can preform a citizens arrest, and hold you until police arrive. The whole can a citizen use reasonable force is really a gray area. A recent case was R. v. Asante-Mensah.

+1 Well said. Correct me if I'm wrong, but on private properties i was told security officers can make an arrest, and are trained to make an arrest under the TPA (tresspass property act) if they committed prohibited actions on the property, such as drugs and fighting and so forth. Is this just the same as a citizens arrest.

[Frankie3s]

Who think that it’s OK for security guards to physically harm shoplifters, think again.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=444c1745-179a-4204-9c9f-484fffeb34f9&p=2

In this country you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Kicking the person in the face is a little too much.

[cwb27]

In this country you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Kicking the person in the face is a little too much.

Don't confuse the application of force to control a suspect with a person's right to a trial. (my apologies as I can't recall the exact term)

If the guy pulled out a knife and tried to stab one of the security guards, there is definitely more grounds to justify the actions.

[Shaner]

Sometimes a good kick in the face is needed, IMO.

Sure, the guy is innocent until proven guilty, but that's only in regards to the shoplifting. The kick in the face was for fighting with the security guard. Maybe it was slightly excessive or maybe it was reasonable, the only people who know are the thief and the security guard, but if you fight with a security guard, cop, or anyone else in a position of power, you're going to get roughed up, that's just the way it is.

I would be appalled if the guy was kicked in the face just for stealing, but the fact is he decided to fight so he got roughed up in the process. Some people on here may not like it, but it's necessary from a law enforcement point of view.

[UrbanPoet]

Sometimes a good kick in the face is needed, IMO.

Sure, the guy is innocent until proven guilty, but that's only in regards to the shoplifting. The kick in the face was for fighting with the security guard. Maybe it was slightly excessive or maybe it was reasonable, the only people who know are the thief and the security guard, but if you fight with a security guard, cop, or anyone else in a position of power, you're going to get roughed up, that's just the way it is.

I would be appalled if the guy was kicked in the face just for stealing, but the fact is he decided to fight so he got roughed up in the process. Some people on here may not like it, but it's necessary from a law enforcement point of view.

I think youll get kicked in the face no matter WHO you fight...
I imagine the theif kicking and screaming too and trying to get a few swipes @ the security... but we never know.

[Kasakato]

I think youll get kicked in the face no matter WHO you fight...
I imagine the theif kicking and screaming too and trying to get a few swipes @ the security... but we never know.

Thats the problem. We dont know if the their put up any resistance at all. The way it sounds now is that the guard kicked the guy, he lost a tooth, and he did not struggle at all. In that case, the judgment is fair IMO. If the guy put up resistance, he deserved what he got.

[Spray]

Judging by this guys record (released from prison 4 days earlier, stole a car 3 cays after the scuffle) I dont know how passive he'd be in an apprehension. But you're right, we never know. I cant see a guard kicking a guy in the face for no reason though, seems pretty pointless.

Thats the problem. We dont know if the their put up any resistance at all. The way it sounds now is that the guard kicked the guy, he lost a tooth, and he did not struggle at all. In that case, the judgment is fair IMO. If the guy put up resistance, he deserved what he got.

[UrbanPoet]

Thats the problem. We dont know if the their put up any resistance at all. The way it sounds now is that the guard kicked the guy, he lost a tooth, and he did not struggle at all. In that case, the judgment is fair IMO. If the guy put up resistance, he deserved what he got.

exactly... and now b/c of this court case... Every shop lifter that gets an arm twist for stealing is gonna sue and WIN...

[cwb27]

exactly... and now b/c of this court case... Every shop lifter that gets an arm twist for stealing is gonna sue and WIN...

I wouldn't go as far to say that... This case was about excessive force, this was illustrated when security guard was asked why he kicked the guy in the mouth and could not provide an answer.

If you can't provide proper justification for application of force that adheres to the guidelines then chances are the application of force was not justified.

[Diamondog]

Judging by this guys record (released from prison 4 days earlier, stole a car 3 cays after the scuffle) I dont know how passive he'd be in an apprehension. But you're right, we never know. I cant see a guard kicking a guy in the face for no reason though, seems pretty pointless.

This is exactly why the guy needs a good shot....the guys obviously a scum bag and I don't care about this innocent until proven guilty BS for all those bleeding hearts as far as I am concerned once you are a convicted criminal and continue with crimnal behavior you deserve what ever comes your way!

[Shaner]

This is exactly why the guy needs a good shot....the guys obviously a scum bag and I don't care about this innocent until proven guilty BS for all those bleeding hearts as far as I am concerned once you are a convicted criminal and continue with crimnal behavior you deserve what ever comes your way!

I agree. Even if this guy didn't put up much of a fight, he's a repeat criminal, I'm glad he got a boot in the face.

[CheapScotsman]

This is exactly why the guy needs a good shot....the guys obviously a scum bag and I don't care about this innocent until proven guilty BS for all those bleeding hearts as far as I am concerned once you are a convicted criminal and continue with crimnal behavior you deserve what ever comes your way!The last thing any of my friends labels me as is ... a bleeding heart liberal ... now, that said.


Now I am not saying that the guy wasn't fighting back and that blows ensued .... but if a security guard one day mistakenly believes you are a "scum bag" and (how does he tell your are a convicted criminal ???) then puts the boots to you ... then you deserve whatever comes you way ????

Sorry, I disagree. Police and security have the right to arrest/detain somebody and to use reasonable force. If they have to kick somebody in the face to get compliance (like their hands behind their backs) then they need better training on leverage points, etc

[Nikita]

Judging by this guys record (released from prison 4 days earlier, stole a car 3 cays after the scuffle) I dont know how passive he'd be in an apprehension. But you're right, we never know. I cant see a guard kicking a guy in the face for no reason though, seems pretty pointless.


That's the point...we don't know how passive he'd be in an apprehension, many repeat criminals are just that, passive, cuz they know what happens when they're not. The not knowing is why prior bad acts aren't allowed as admissable evidence in court (except under certain circumstances, e.g. to show a pattern of behaviour). Having a criminal record is not reliable evidence of guilt of a current charge, especially when the current charge is very different from his record). Unreliable evidence is not relevant, therefore not admissable.

I have to say I'm disappointed but not surprised by the attitude that because this guy has a criminal record, he's a 'scumbag' and deserves to get the **** kicked out of him, by police officer, even less so by some store security guard. People make mistakes and eveyone deserves a second chance. To all of those who's attitude is 'scumbag deserved it' I pity the day you make your FIRST? mistake and nobody's willing to give you a second chance.

On the issue of citizen's arrest (there appears to be some confusion regarding the words 'arrest' and 'detention), technically that's what it's callled but it's actually the right to detain someone till police arrive to make an official arrest (or not). Only police have the right to officially place someone under arrest. And of course you can only use reasonable force to affect a citizen's arrest, as someone stated above, citizens have restricted rights to enforce a 'citizen's arrest', not as broad as the police rights to arrest.

[Lone_Prodigy]

The definition of "reasonable" is open to debate.

[Diamondog]

Thats the problem. We dont know if the their put up any resistance at all. The way it sounds now is that the guard kicked the guy, he lost a tooth, and he did not struggle at all. In that case, the judgment is fair IMO. If the guy put up resistance, he deserved what he got.

Bleeding heart...this guy is a convicted criminal.....he deserves a few years in the clink to be exposed to some real violence!

[Spray]

Yeah the guy got such a second chance he decided to steal a car 3 days after the security guard incident.

Anyways even if he was struggling I think kicking in the face is probably a little excessive regardless. I'd had people struggle with me and try to fight back and I'd still never hit them in the face, we were taught to be very scared of lawsuits. Being a security guard is a terrible job, which is why I quit. It's extremely dangerous, and some of these guys you dont know if they're carrying a knife or not, which is why it's so scary if they resist or struggle fiercely.

[Diamondog]

The last thing any of my friends labels me as is ... a bleeding heart liberal ... now, that said.


Now I am not saying that the guy wasn't fighting back and that blows ensued .... but if a security guard one day mistakenly believes you are a "scum bag" and (how does he tell your are a convicted criminal ???) then puts the boots to you ... then you deserve whatever comes you way ????

Sorry, I disagree. Police and security have the right to arrest/detain somebody and to use reasonable force. If they have to kick somebody in the face to get compliance (like their hands behind their backs) then they need better training on leverage points, etc

The guy was SEEN shoplifting.....force wasn't excessive even if he didn't put up a fight...who cares...I advocate the use of force on a criminal....and as for a guard trying that on me it wouldn't happen I don't steal and if it did happen then a $12,000 settlement would be justifiable, in this case it's not.

[Nikita]

The definition of "reasonable" is open to debate.


Of course it is, that's why it's the subject of so much argument in court. Only a judge will ultimately determine the 'reasonableness' of any action. Without getting too much into legal lingo...there are two components to determining reasonableness. There's a subjective component, meaning whether or not the person in question truly believed their actions were reasonable, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, and an objective component, meaning whether a reasonable person in the shoes of the subject (the person-on-the-street sort of analysis), would have acted in the same way, again taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the situation.

Have I confused you enough yet...lol? Yeah well the law is no doubt confusing to the layperson. Which is why I believe in the movement toward plain language in the law.

[GangStarr]

Of course it is, that's why it's the subject of so much argument in court. Only a judge will ultimately determine the 'reasonableness' of any action. Without getting too much into legal lingo...there are two components to determining reasonableness. There's a subjective component, meaning whether or not the person in question truly believed their actions were reasonable, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, and an objective component, meaning whether a reasonable person in the shoes of the subject (the person-on-the-street sort of analysis), would have acted in the same way, again taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the situation.

Have I confused you enough yet...lol? Yeah well the law is no doubt confusing to the layperson. Which is why I believe in the movement toward plain language in the law.

excellent definition of reasonableness.

[manixc]

boohoo, the shoplifter could've cooperated and don't resist detainment.

Knowing our justice system, he probably wouldn't get must time for shoplifting.

[Diamondog]

boohoo, the shoplifter could've cooperated and don't resist detainment.

Knowing our justice system, he probably wouldn't get must time for shoplifting.

Until we have elected judges we won't have a decent justice system that really punishes criminals.

[Lone_Prodigy]

Until we have elected judges we won't have a decent justice system that really punishes criminals.

It's more than just the judges. They have to look at precedent, previous criminal record, and many other circumstances related to that particular crime. Plus, the point of jail time is to rehabilitate as well as deter. There has to be a balance of those two things.

[direct-x]

Ha-ha

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1G8_BbERk8o

[Nikita]

Until we have elected judges we won't have a decent justice system that really punishes criminals.

What makes you think elected judges would be any better?

[UrbanPoet]

What makes you think elected judges would be any better?

btw... Appointed judges actually do serve a purpose in our political tradition.