Chased Down in the parking lot at Kroger in Sachse

[fadlan12]

"BrassMonkey"I will bite just out of boredom at the moment.

Let us forget the fact that no one should see your weapon and all the esoteric rhetoric that gets posted or called out when someone throws out a possible response to a possible situation.

The crux of your post being, "A group of people, while you are doing no wrong, attemps to takes my lawfully possesed gun away"

If I have no means of escape, someone's gettin a bullet. And they will keep getting bullets until they stop or until I run out.

Well thats not exactly what what I was asking. The law says they can detain you if they think you have stolen. What if while they are detaining you one of the 4 or 5 employees realizes you have a weapon. If they attempt to disarm you while detaining you and you start blasting...it sounds like a bad situation. I can see 5 guys getting brave and not "waiting to call the police".

[BrassMonkey]

This is an example of why I get frustrated with this internet board. Obviously, when I say, lay a finger on me, I do not mean a hug, or a caring gesture. I mean in a confrontational manner. Are you people really that desperate to tell someone they are incorrect, wrong stupid or a bad person.

Wow.

I am astonished at this thread. I guess 'Rambo' really does exist.... or at at least that mentality.

Be nice, co-operate with the store employee and go back to your loved ones safe and sound. In the grand scheme of life, it might only take a few minutes and it's really no big deal.

The statement about "no one will ever lay a finger on me" is almost paranoid or delusional. Lots of people in this great country of ours are very affectionate and often touch another during conversations. Folks who consider themselves to be faith based and Christian do it all the time. If a young man working in a store happens to be one of those kind of folks and touches you during a conversation, you would seriously escalate it to the next level ?

Just by being smart enough to have a CHL in the first place, I would hope to give someone more credit than that. An attitude that "no one will ever lay a finger on me" ought to be a valid reason for the DPS to suspend your CHL for mental instability.

And while I'm on the subject of CHL...... have you considered that the store employee might also be carrying under his own CHL license ? Then you would have to totally trust in him to know the escalation of force doctrine if you assault him because he was having a conversation with you in the parking lot and just happened to "lay a finger on you".

Like I said at the beginning of this reply..... I am astonished at the tone of this thread. As a former LEO who rose through the ranks to the position of Chief of Police, I've been around the block quite a few times in my life. In every legal sense that I know, and every moral value that I believe in, the attitude of "no one will ever lay a finger on me" is going to get the author in a lot of trouble, given the right circumstances.

[BrassMonkey]

Again,
If someone tries to take my firearm away, they are gettin a bullet if I there is no means of escape. ESPECIALLY with multiple assailants... You gonna hand yrou firearm over to anyone? I don'tthink so. If you did, you would be an idiot...

"BrassMonkey"I will bite just out of boredom at the moment.

Let us forget the fact that no one should see your weapon and all the esoteric rhetoric that gets posted or called out when someone throws out a possible response to a possible situation.

The crux of your post being, "A group of people, while you are doing no wrong, attemps to takes my lawfully possesed gun away"

If I have no means of escape, someone's gettin a bullet. And they will keep getting bullets until they stop or until I run out.

Well thats not exactly what what I was asking. The law says they can detain you if they think you have stolen. What if while they are detaining you one of the 4 or 5 employees realizes you have a weapon. If they attempt to disarm you while detaining you and you start blasting...it sounds like a bad situation. I can see 5 guys getting brave and not "waiting to call the police".

[KBCraig]

How did so many immediately jump to "physical restrainment?" There is no store out there with a policy to do so.

Store employees don't "chase" or "restrain" shoppers. Any that do, will find themselves out of a job for sure.

Perhaps we jumped there because that's what Nitrogen said in his original post:

one of the employees in the store ran up to me at my car, and prevented me from leaving

I would like clarification of how the employee "prevented" him from leaving. In the meantime, it's not a big jump to discuss scenarios in which you're physically blocked from leaving (which constitutes restraint).

Kevin

[fadlan12]

Wow.
snip
And while I'm on the subject of CHL...... have you considered that the store employee might also be carrying under his own CHL license ? Then you would have to totally trust in him to know the escalation of force doctrine if you assault him because he was having a conversation with you in the parking lot and just happened to "lay a finger on you".
snip.

Excellent point, " an armed society is a polite society". You could be giving attitude and equal force defense.

[BrassMonkey]

I don't understand what youmean by this, "You could be giving attitude and equal force defense."

Wow.
snip
And while I'm on the subject of CHL...... have you considered that the store employee might also be carrying under his own CHL license ? Then you would have to totally trust in him to know the escalation of force doctrine if you assault him because he was having a conversation with you in the parking lot and just happened to "lay a finger on you".
snip.

Excellent point, " an armed society is a polite society". You could be giving attitude and equal force defense.

[Lucky45]

The statement about "no one will ever lay a finger on me" is almost paranoid or delusional. Lots of people in this great country of ours are very affectionate and often touch another during conversations. Folks who consider themselves to be faith based and Christian do it all the time. If a young man working in a store happens to be one of those kind of folks and touches you during a conversation, you would seriously escalate it to the next level ?

Come on now!!!!! That is nonsense. In 2007, as a former Chief of Police, you know fully, that anyone approaching you uninvited and talking nonsense and places a hand on you which is felt (force); that as a officer, is that not considered ASSAULT.???? That is the number one, easiest ways to be arrested in USA, is to just brush on an officer. SO why is it different for a civilian all of a sudden.

[mr surveyor]

and the ironic thing is that this is the same forum on which another thread suggested that there would be blood in the streets because of the recognition of the rights of non-chl's to carry handguns in their own automobiles...sheesh

[fadlan12]

I don't understand what youmean by this, "You could be giving attitude and equal force defense."

Wow.
snip
And while I'm on the subject of CHL...... have you considered that the store employee might also be carrying under his own CHL license ? Then you would have to totally trust in him to know the escalation of force doctrine if you assault him because he was having a conversation with you in the parking lot and just happened to "lay a finger on you".
snip.

Excellent point, " an armed society is a polite society". You could be giving attitude and equal force defense to a chlr.

FixedSorry I meant to say you could be giving another CHLer justification for self defense if you hit him and escalate the situation.

[Lucky45]

Just so you can all see the law on this:

Code of Criminal Procedure Article 18.16. PREVENTING CONSEQUENCES OF
THEFT.
Any person has a right to prevent the consequences of theft by seizing any personal property that has been stolen and bringing it, with the person suspected of committing the theft, if that person can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or delivering the property and the person suspected of committing the theft to a peace officer for that purpose. To justify a seizure under this article, there must be reasonable ground to believe the property is stolen, and the seizure must be openly made and the proceedings had without delay.

Now for most of this discussion, the word detain has been thrown around and it is not in the penal code. But let's examine the word "detain."

Detain -1. to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay.
2. to keep under restraint or in custody

Part1. is what most loss prevention / employee might have the right to do in some sort of fashion, until it can be sorted out.

Part2. The authority to do that normally lands under a peace officer or LEO. No employee has that right under state law.

But anyway, according to the penal code, any person has the right to seize the property, so why is there the attempt to get physical all the time and sieze the person?? It says if that person can be taken to relevant authorities. It does not say if that person can be taken by force or restraint. So, does this need to be clarified better to employees???


P.S. I feel you, Funky monkey. The moral of the story is "DON'T BE TAKEN!!!!!" UNLESS RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

[BrassMonkey]

It used to be called "Illegal Detainment" prior to, ummmm, 95 or so?


PENAL CODE
CHAPTER 20. KIDNAPPING AND UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT
Sec.A20.01. DEFINITIONS.AAIn this chapter:
(1)AA"Restrain" means to restrict a person ’s movements
without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person ’s
liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by
confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is
accomplished by:
(A)AAforce, intimidation, or deception; or
(B)AAany means, including acquiescence of the
victim, if:
(i)AAthe victim is a child who is less than
14 years of age or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian,
or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced
in the movement or confinement; or
(ii)AAthe victim is a child who is 14 years
of age or older and younger than 17 years of age, the victim is taken
outside of the state and outside a 120-mile radius from the victim ’s
residence, and the parent, guardian, or person or institution
acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement.
(2)AA"Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to
prevent his liberation by:
(A)AAsecreting or holding him in a place where he
is not likely to be found; or
(B)AAusing or threatening to use deadly force.
(3)AA"Relative" means a parent or stepparent, ancestor,
sibling, or uncle or aunt, including an adoptive relative of the
same degree through marriage or adoption.
(4)AA"Person" means an individual, corporation, or
association.
(5)AANotwithstanding Section 1.07, "individual" means
a human being who has been born and is alive.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, Sec. 2.03, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Sec.A20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT.AA(a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
(b)AAIt is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1)AAthe person restrained was a child younger than 14
years of age;
(2)AAthe actor was a relative of the child; and
(3)AAthe actor ’s sole intent was to assume lawful
control of the child.
(c)AAAn offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor,
except that the offense is:
(1)AAa state jail felony if the person restrained was a
child younger than 17 years of age; or
(2)AAa felony of the third degree if:
(A)AAthe actor recklessly exposes the victim to a
substantial risk of serious bodily injury;
(B)AAthe actor restrains an individual the actor
knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully
discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an
exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a
public servant; or
(C)AAthe actor while in custody restrains any
other person.
(d)AAIt is no offense to detain or move another under this
section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or
detaining an individual lawfully arrested.
(e)AAIt is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1)AAthe person restrained was a child who is 14 years
of age or older and younger than 17 years of age;
(2)AAthe actor does not restrain the child by force,
intimidation, or deception; and
(3)AAthe actor is not more than three years older than
the child.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 707, Sec. 1(b), 2, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 524, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
1
Sec.A20.03. KIDNAPPING.AA(a) A person commits an offense if
he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.
(b)AAIt is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1)AAthe abduction was not coupled with intent to use or
to threaten to use deadly force;
(2)AAthe actor was a relative of the person abducted;
and
(3)AAthe actor ’s sole intent was to assume lawful
control of the victim.
(c)AAAn offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Sec.A20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING.AA(a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person
with the intent to:
(1)AAhold him for ransom or reward;
(2)AAuse him as a shield or hostage;
(3)AAfacilitate the commission of a felony or the
flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4)AAinflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse
him sexually;
(5)AAterrorize him or a third person; or
(6)AAinterfere with the performance of any governmental
or political function.
(b)AAA person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly
weapon during the commission of the offense.
(c)AAExcept as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d)AAAt the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may
raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in
a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative
by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the
second degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec.A20.05. UNLAWFUL TRANSPORT.AA(a) A person commits an
offense if the person for pecuniary benefit transports an
individual in a manner that:
(1)AAis designed to conceal the individual from local,
state, or federal law enforcement authorities; and
(2)AAcreates a substantial likelihood that the
individual will suffer serious bodily injury or death.
(b)AAAn offense under this section is a state jail felony.
Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1014, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
2

[frankie_the_yankee]

It used to be called "Illegal Detainment" prior to, ummmm, 95 or so?

Sorry. Does not apply. You're not being kidnapped. In effect, you're being arrested. (Citizen's arrest) Big difference.

What would apply is an assault and battery charge against you if you escalated (to physical force) a lawful attempt by a loss prevention person to recover property that they had a reasonable belief that you possessed illegally. Even if it turns out that you did not illegally possess anything, the alarm going off is enough to give them a reasonable belief that you did. They won't know the facts until they investigate, which you should accept with grace as a peaceable citizen and CHL holder.

Furthermore, if you escalate the situation, you are no longer acting in lawful self defense per the use of force statutes.

[nitrogen]

I didn't hear the machine at the door beep (I have some hearing impairment) but when I was putting my groceries in my car, one of the employees in the store ran up to me at my car, and prevented me from leaving until I "showed my receipt and items".

All the hypothetical discussions seem to have skipped this point: how did the employee prevent you from leaving?

The guy stood in front of me, about a few inches away from me, behind my car. Unless I was to shove him out of my way, unless I wanted to get in my car and drive over him, I couldn't leave.

I'm surprised at how this thread exploded since I posted it last night, so I'd like to post some of my thoughts on this whole episode.

I never really meant to get into the legal arguments here. I more wanted to let people know that it DOES happen.

My big problem is being treated like a crook. I will *NOT* stand for being treated like a thief; chased down. If a store employee reallly wants to do that, okay, I'll go back in the store, return all my items and go shop somewhere else. I think that's a much better way to show my displeasure.

How did so many immediately jump to "physical restrainment?" There is no store out there with a policy to do so.

Store employees don't "chase" or "restrain" shoppers. Any that do, will find themselves out of a job for sure.

Kroger in Sachse, off of Highway 78 does. When I asked the manager, he told me that was his stores policy; to chase people down and keep them from leaving.

LEt me also say that at no time during this incident was I afraid for my life, and I did not feel justified in responding with force (deadly or otherwise)

I am going to Kroger corporate with this incident, and we'll see how they handle it.

And everyone, watch your tempers. I'm seeing some raised tempers and that's just not cool.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I didn't hear the machine at the door beep (I have some hearing impairment) but when I was putting my groceries in my car, one of the employees in the store ran up to me at my car, and prevented me from leaving until I "showed my receipt and items".

All the hypothetical discussions seem to have skipped this point: how did the employee prevent you from leaving?

The guy stood in front of me, about a few inches away from me, behind my car. Unless I was to shove him out of my way, unless I wanted to get in my car and drive over him, I couldn't leave.

I'm surprised at how this thread exploded since I posted it last night, so I'd like to post some of my thoughts on this whole episode.

I never really meant to get into the legal arguments here. I more wanted to let people know that it DOES happen.

My big problem is being treated like a crook. I will *NOT* stand for being treated like a thief; chased down. If a store employee reallly wants to do that, okay, I'll go back in the store, return all my items and go shop somewhere else. I think that's a much better way to show my displeasure.

How did so many immediately jump to "physical restrainment?" There is no store out there with a policy to do so.

Store employees don't "chase" or "restrain" shoppers. Any that do, will find themselves out of a job for sure.

Kroger in Sachse, off of Highway 78 does. When I asked the manager, he told me that was his stores policy; to chase people down and keep them from leaving.

LEt me also say that at no time during this incident was I afraid for my life, and I did not feel justified in responding with force (deadly or otherwise)

I am going to Kroger corporate with this incident, and we'll see how they handle it.

And everyone, watch your tempers. I'm seeing some raised tempers and that's just not cool.

It sounds to me like you acted in a reasonable manner throughout what must have been a very annoying and unpleasant experience.

[DaveT]

The statement about "no one will ever lay a finger on me" is almost paranoid or delusional. Lots of people in this great country of ours are very affectionate and often touch another during conversations. Folks who consider themselves to be faith based and Christian do it all the time. If a young man working in a store happens to be one of those kind of folks and touches you during a conversation, you would seriously escalate it to the next level ?

Come on now!!!!! That is nonsense. In 2007, as a former Chief of Police, you know fully, that anyone approaching you uninvited and talking nonsense and places a hand on you which is felt (force); that as a officer, is that not considered ASSAULT.???? That is the number one, easiest ways to be arrested in USA, is to just brush on an officer. SO why is it different for a civilian all of a sudden.

Lucky 45,

In order to compare apples to apples, the subject matter needs to remain the same. By adding "talking nonsense" into the equation, you have changed things substantially. Nowhere in the original thought process of this thread was someone approaching you uninvited and talking nonsense mentioned. The original scenario involved a store employee approaching a customer because a store beeper went off. I would not qualify what an employee would say in that kind of a situation as "talking nonsense".

Common sense is the key to everything discussed in this thread. Common sense will tell you that the store employee is just doing their job, common sense should keep the scenario from escalating into an assault.

The 'keyboard warrior' talk is what has changed this thread to change directions.

As far as an Officer's response: Yes, this is 2007, and yes things have changed in our society, and not all for the better. Police Officers do not have a mandate to arrest EVERYONE who talks nonsense, or even touches them while doing it. Police Officers must also rely on common sense. They are entrusted with not only a knowledge of the law, but the DISCRETION of how and when it should be enforced in a multitude of differing situations. If every Police Officer arrested every person for talking nonsense or touching them, our jails would not be able to handle the overload. Using his knowledge of the law, and having the training required under the law, an Officer will also use his own common sense and experience to determine when someone touching them is a perceived threat or not.