TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting ...

http://www.statesman.com/story-2321586.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm glad the one in CS turned out well thanks to a quick thinking individual. I'm sure Wally World has crunched the numbers with their lawyers and insurers and projected it to cost a little less in the end.

Proof that Walmart is more concerned with the lives of criminals than their employees ;)

A-R wrote:Interesting ...

http://www.statesman.com/story-2321586.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conflicting policy with what the officials are saying in the case of slaying of the Austin Police Officer. I recommend, Settle Utah law suit and change the policy to better protect the employees and innocent customers.

According to company policy, a copy of which was posted online with Utah news stories, employees should apprehend shoplifters, but they may not use force to defend themselves except as needed to get out of the situation.

That has to be the most insane company policy I have ever seen. If they are required to apprehend shoplifters, then they should be allowed to defend themselves. Otherwise, don't require employees to apprehend shoplifters.

According to the police report, Bradshaw pulled the weapon from his pants pocket, an employee grabbed it, Bradshaw then pulled a knife and the employee shot him.

He should get a medal for saving the lives of innocent people nearby.

He did exactly what he needed to do, to get (himself and others) out of the situation.... and keep from getting stabbed. He followed policy as I read it.

JJVP wrote:

According to company policy, a copy of which was posted online with Utah news stories, employees should apprehend shoplifters, but they may not use force to defend themselves except as needed to get out of the situation.

That has to be the most insane company policy I have ever seen. If they are required to apprehend shoplifters, then they should be allowed to defend themselves. Otherwise, don't require employees to apprehend shoplifters.

I have been told by a Walmart employee that they are not to apprehend shoplifters once they are outside. And I think security is the only ones who are to approach shoplifters inside.

I know a number of the AP members that are spread across my area fairly well. I can say that down to the man they apprehend regularly outside of the store. It is a tight rope they walk with the self defense policy. Almost everyone of them will "defend" themselves fully but they also know at any time they are likely to be let go depending on the outcome. I won't comment on what they feel indicates a threat that needs to be defended against.

I can say that I worry about the day that they escalate a situation with an innocent CHL holder who isn't interested in being targeted. The way they confront some people suspected of shoplifting outside of stores would have some believing they were being attacked which could end badly.

I walked up on an incident at a Walmart in Plano one early morning around 1am or so. Several Walmart employees were standing outside having a shouting match with a pretty rough looking couple. From the exchange I overheard, the battle was over shop lifting. The couple was in their car right in front of the store, motor running. The female got into the car as the employees pursued her out of the store. The guy driving threw something at the employees and sped off. Thank goodness they didn't run over me. I had walked in front of the car just a minute before they drove off.

I found out which employee was the "general" and let him know how stupid it was for he and the others to be escalating a situation to dangerous over a pair of blue jeans.

Now I know why they were acting so ignorant. That store policy is just crazy stupid!

grim-bob wrote: I can say that I worry about the day that they escalate a situation with an innocent CHL holder who isn't interested in being targeted. The way they confront some people suspected of shoplifting outside of stores would have some believing they were being attacked which could end badly.

Wow.... Yeah .... I would react pretty violently if someone came up from behind and grabbed me. I would never think they were trying to detain me for shop lifting and I would react so fast, they would have very little time to say so. I am not sure I would hear them anyway. Once I fly into "that" mode....I would be so scared for my life... I am certain it would get real bad real fast! Even without a CHL... I would turn and strike hard. I might take a butt whipping but the person grabbing me would be wondering who really won the fight.

I've actually wondered about this myself. LP personnel seem to be really aggressive at some stores, and I've seen them at a couple of stores try to apprehend people without clearly identifying themselves. Also, it seems to me that it would be easy for someone to mistake a printing gun for a stolen item hidden under clothing, or for a surreptitious gun/holster adjustment to be mistaken for trying to hide a stolen item. Aggressively stopping a CHL holder under those conditions seems to hold potential for a really bad incident.

I guess store policies vary. Looking at our local police department's Facebook page, you would think our local Wal-Mart doesn't do any LP. In fact, local commenters have suggested the PD should charge Wal-Mart for all the shoplifters they have to run down. A couple recent ones include somebody walking out with a 60" TV and a couple or three guys who took a plastic garbage can, filled it with over $700 worth of shampoo, and walked out the door with it.

I work lp for a new Walmart I have been there since the store opened and been doing lp for 5 years. The policy has changed dramatically since I started there back in the day. As long as I saw selection conceAlment continued possession of the merchandise past the last point of sale, all I had to do was show my name badge and if the person started to fight than I could throw them on the ground and cuff them and it was over. As long as they didn't physically throw a punch I could do what I wanted to get them in as long as I didn't beat them up. Now it's different no throwing on the ground but I could use some "phisical redirection on them if needed". I can't stop anyone on suspicion of stealing I must be 100% or I loose my job. If someone has a concealed gun on them and dosent even use it and is caught stealing it's a robbery no matter if they show the gun or not. If I get hurt trying to get them in the office it turns into felony robbery. We do have cops that assist me as well the policy does suck and I've only had one incident where if I had my gun on me I would have used it. I was trying to get a liscense plate and the guy hopped out of his car and ran at me screaming with a box cutter in his hand saying want some. Anyways before u say what u heard what we can do just ask me and I can let u know.

Ps. No one is going to come up behind u and just attack you it does not work that way. If they don't show u a badge I could understand.They have to show a badge. We dont stop people unless less were 100%. Period.

Astro99 wrote:I work lp for a new Walmart I have been there since the store opened and been doing lp for 5 years. The policy has changed dramatically since I started there back in the day. As long as I saw selection conceAlment continued possession of the merchandise past the last point of sale, all I had to do was show my name badge and if the person started to fight than I could throw them on the ground and cuff them and it was over. As long as they didn't physically throw a punch I could do what I wanted to get them in as long as I didn't beat them up. Now it's different no throwing on the ground but I could use some "phisical redirection on them if needed". I can't stop anyone on suspicion of stealing I must be 100% or I loose my job. If someone has a concealed gun on them and dosent even use it and is caught stealing it's a robbery no matter if they show the gun or not. If I get hurt trying to get them in the office it turns into felony robbery. We do have cops that assist me as well the policy does suck and I've only had one incident where if I had my gun on me I would have used it. I was trying to get a liscense plate and the guy hopped out of his car and ran at me screaming with a box cutter in his hand saying want some. Anyways before u say what u heard what we can do just ask me and I can let u know.

...Texas Penal Code disagrees with the "If someone has a concealed gun on them and dosent even use it and is caught stealing it's a robbery no matter if they show the gun or not." Better to operate under the law rather than what "they say"...anyone in loss prevention should know and understand a lot of Texas law...it's on them if they scwew it all up!!!


CHAPTER 29. ROBBERY


§ 29.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "In the course of committing theft" means conduct
that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in
immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.
(2) "Property" means:
(A) tangible or intangible personal property
including anything severed from land; or
(B) a document, including money, that represents
or embodies anything of value.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 357, § 2, eff. Sept. 1,
1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.