STOP! Let me see your bag!

[jmra]

From what the OP has stated the LPO at Moon's violated just about every one of the Best Practices recommendations of professional security agents organizations. Certainly a lively debate to be sure.

I would say the OP violated every single de-escalation and conflict resolution that would make one a good embasador for those that carry.

Hopefully both parties learned from the encounter.

[puma guy]

From what the OP has stated the LPO at Moon's violated just about every one of the Best Practices recommendations of professional security agents organizations. Certainly a lively debate to be sure.

I would say the OP violated every single de-escalation and conflict resolution that would make one a good embasador for those that carry.

Not interested in debating - I was just making a statement on the contrast based on the OP's description of the LPO's actions and protocol dictated by professional organizations. I will qualify it though, IF the description from the OP is true the LPO was out of bounds per Best Practices. IMHO

[Right2Carry]

From what the OP has stated the LPO at Moon's violated just about every one of the Best Practices recommendations of professional security agents organizations. Certainly a lively debate to be sure.

I would say the OP violated every single de-escalation and conflict resolution that would make one a good embasador for those that carry.

Not interested in debating - I was just making a statement on the contrast based on the OP's description of the LPO's actions and protocol dictated by professional organizations. I will qualify it though, IF the description from the OP is true the LPO was out of bounds per Best Practices. IMHO

I believe according to the OP, the LEO found otherwise.

[Abraham]

So, the upshot is: Refuse to comply with store security orders and all rights are forfeit. Whenever you go shopping in non member type stores, just remember, a non-LEO can hang cuff, detain, even pepper spray though the shopper is found to be innocent, because in essence a store and it's security are a micro police state.

After being roughed up and then innocence established, the shopper can then go about his/her business and no shopper should complain, cuz the store has the authority to shove you around and you should be a willing lamb about it.

Is that about it?

Store authority loyalists vs those who stand up for themselves.

I find it hard to believe some of us are so easily willing to go along with store totalitarianism.

Of course, there were loyalists for King George 111 and others decided NOT to go along with his unjust treatment either and look where that went...

[Keith B]

So, the upshot is: Refuse to comply with store security orders and all rights are forfeit. Whenever you go shopping in non member type stores, just remember, a non-LEO can hang cuff, detain, even pepper spray though the shopper is found to be innocent, because in essence a store and it's security are a micro police state.

After being roughed up and then innocence established, the shopper can then go about his/her business and no shopper should complain, cuz the store has the authority to shove you around and you should be a willing lamb about it.

Is that about it?

Store authority loyalists vs those who stand up for themselves.

I find it hard to believe some of us are so easily willing to go along with store totalitarianism.

Of course, there were loyalists for King George 111 and others decided NOT to go along with his unjust treatment either and look where that went...

It's not about agreeing or not with the policy; it's about what's legal for them to do. It is legal for them to stop and detain you for an investigation if they have reasonable suspicion you have stolen something? What actually constitutes reasonable suspicion is up to interpretation and case law is not real clear on that here in Texas. The other question is, what extent can a security officer go to for detention? We're not talking individual store policies, but legally how far is too far? If a person refuses to stop, can the security person physically restrain you, including handcuffs as he threatened? Was pepper spraying the person trying to leave justified to attempt to detain them? Did the security guard feel that he was being threatened and used the pepper spray to defend himself?

These are all questions that can't be answered here in the forum and would need to be hammered out between lawyers and potentially a court of law. If the activity was criminal on either side, then the prosecuting attorney will file charges on the case if either party decides to pursue the matter.

So, there are a lot of angles this could go if it goes to legal proceedings and/or court. At this point, we can't answer how it would end of who would come out on top.

[EEllis]

Agreed - a pat down for weapons is allowed when it can be justified for safety, but a search even for contraband/stolen goods to which I was referring is not. Except the case in DC that I mentioned, which was very curious to me. Courts basically ruled the agents were police, at least the way I read it.

In Texas a merchant is allowed to investigate with reason and that does include searches. They can't do a general shake down tho. If they see someone put something in a pocket for instance then they can check someones pocket. They need to be able to justify where and what they are searching. As to the agents being police it may have to do with admissibility of evidence and using the same guidelines as police but without the opinion who knows.

[Javier730]

So, the upshot is: Refuse to comply with store security orders and all rights are forfeit. Whenever you go shopping in non member type stores, just remember, a non-LEO can hang cuff, detain, even pepper spray though the shopper is found to be innocent, because in essence a store and it's security are a micro police state.

After being roughed up and then innocence established, the shopper can then go about his/her business and no shopper should complain, cuz the store has the authority to shove you around and you should be a willing lamb about it.

This is what the majority believes. I for one do not. It could of been handled differently from both sides.

[baldeagle]

So, the upshot is: Refuse to comply with store security orders and all rights are forfeit. Whenever you go shopping in non member type stores, just remember, a non-LEO can hang cuff, detain, even pepper spray though the shopper is found to be innocent, because in essence a store and it's security are a micro police state.

After being roughed up and then innocence established, the shopper can then go about his/her business and no shopper should complain, cuz the store has the authority to shove you around and you should be a willing lamb about it.

Is that about it?

Store authority loyalists vs those who stand up for themselves.

I find it hard to believe some of us are so easily willing to go along with store totalitarianism.

Of course, there were loyalists for King George 111 and others decided NOT to go along with his unjust treatment either and look where that went...

Wow! Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Not to mention a false analogy.

There was a time when, if you walked out of a store without confirming that you had purchased the items, the storeowner would simply shoot you. Now he asks to see your receipt. And you think your rights are being violated?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in this country about rights. Your rights are in reference to the government, not to private store owners, not to forums you might happen to post on, not to property that doesn't belong to you and not to your neighbors. The store owner is not a threat to your liberty. The government is. The store owner might be able to strip you of your dignity. He cannot even detain you without the state's permission. The state can strip you of your rights, your property, your freedom and even your life. The only protection you have from the government is the due process of law, and even that, when perverted by dishonest men, is no protection. As a last resort, you have the protection of the gun. You can chose to resist with force, but that is a decision that should not be taken lightly, because, once exercised, it cannot be withdrawn.

Take, for example, freedom of speech. You have the right to say anything you want about the government. You do not have the right to say anything you want about me. You can be sued for libel if you do. You do not have the right to say anything you want on my property. If I don't like what you say, I can kick you off my property, by force if necessary. You do not have the right to walk into a store and say anything you want. You can be charged with trespassing. You don't have the right to say anything you want on this forum. If you try, you can be banned.

With reference to the incident the OP articulated, exactly what right has been violated when you are asked to show the contents of your bag? And what right are you exercising when you refuse to show those contents?

If you don't even understand when it's appropriate to fight for your rights and who you need to fight against, there's no much chance that you will make good judgments that inure to your benefit.

[EEllis]

Oh Puma there is a case in Texas,Victor Carr v. H.E. Butt Grocery Company, where someone with a non store bag was leaving and set off the inventory alarm. That is enough for you to be held. Now if it's a different situation then who knows but to say that an alarm isn't enough to stop is not entirely true.

[puma guy]

Agreed - a pat down for weapons is allowed when it can be justified for safety, but a search even for contraband/stolen goods to which I was referring is not. Except the case in DC that I mentioned, which was very curious to me. Courts basically ruled the agents were police, at least the way I read it.

In Texas a merchant is allowed to investigate with reason and that does include searches. They can't do a general shake down tho. If they see someone put something in a pocket for instance then they can check someones pocket. They need to be able to justify where and what they are searching. As to the agents being police it may have to do with admissibility of evidence and using the same guidelines as police but without the opinion who knows.

You're a smart person look it up. It gave them protection from 4th amendment violation.

[puma guy]

Oh Puma there is a case in Texas,Victor Carr v. H.E. Butt Grocery Company, where someone with a non store bag was leaving and set off the inventory alarm. That is enough for you to be held. Now if it's a different situation then who knows but to say that an alarm isn't enough to stop is not entirely true.

Thanks. I couldn't find one.

[puma guy]

From what the OP has stated the LPO at Moon's violated just about every one of the Best Practices recommendations of professional security agents organizations. Certainly a lively debate to be sure.

I would say the OP violated every single de-escalation and conflict resolution that would make one a good embasador for those that carry.

Not interested in debating - I was just making a statement on the contrast based on the OP's description of the LPO's actions and protocol dictated by professional organizations. I will qualify it though, IF the description from the OP is true the LPO was out of bounds per Best Practices. IMHO

I believe according to the OP, the LEO found otherwise.

I must've missed that part. I read it was turned over for investigation.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I know that I am late to jump in on this, but I will post short and sweet my opinion as impartially to either party as possible.

I do not intend to be making any sor of personal attack, but based on the OP's report of what happened, I believe we can all agree that de-escalation can make a big difference in a situation. I firmly believe in attempting to be the better person in every situation, but I'm not here to criticize anybody. Let's all remember that the biggest factor (IMO) in every situation, is US.

As far as the security officer goes, I believe he went beyond what he was able to handle. If you can't stop an indivual, and thy theaten you, it's time to disengage before things get worse, and observe & report. Whatever he though might have been stolen, was not worth getting stabbed, shot, or run over. He shouldn't be trying to arrest somebody trying to flee in a car, nor pepper spraying him.

My suggestion though, go after the guard company, and the store. I would like to know where he was taught that it is reasonable to pepper spray a person whom is fleeing in a vehicle. Just my opinions, no need to reply to this unless you have something to add or correct.

[AlphaBeta]

Carr v Butt was a different case and missed a key point they used. First off the bag was not a store bag and he didn't get someone's approval prior to entering (though he said he attempted to notify the SO). I could give credit to the belief if I was walking without a company issued bag or a bag I had from another store (fair to stop and check that). I bet Carr would have been different if he stopped with Cruz (Security) first prior to customer service. Because he entered with the bag and had been seen by the person detaining. Though that is my opinion and I am biased admittedly.

Now in reference to baldeagle: I know that our constitutional rights are applied to the government and you as a private citizen are protected from the government but we have the government in place to protect the common freedoms we are assured from even the private citizen when it comes to public places that are open to the public. There is also the need to protect society from the private citizen that chooses to remove your freedoms without that legal protection to allow you to do that.

I do not disagree with the power to kick someone out of your home if they do something wrong or your private property. Nor do I feel you should be forced to allow me to say whatever I want about you or use your private property to push a point you don't agree with. I feel you should have that say on your own private area. However the question here becomes where does your power end and my freedoms begin. If by using the logic you offer I can stop everyone from leaving my store that doesn't agree that cupcakes are amazing and that all cats should be president. Right? My property not yours and you don't give up your freedoms just because you came in.

The issue is that *I* see a potential for abuse and I see where the law grants that protection to detain on a flimsy table that could blanket protect everyone. By the logic stated here any ACT that makes the store believe you have done something stole could be used to detain you. Let's take it a step further what happens when you set the alarm off and the person isn't satisfied that you didn't steal anything until you walk back into an office and take your pants off dumping them, now your underwear because I believe you may have stashed it there in between your legs. Nope nothing? Ok you hid it under your shirt so take that off. Now how do you feel? Humiliated? Like a criminal? Oh you didn't have anything? I never saw you take anything but that anti-theft system we have said you did. Must have been a mistake sorry have a nice day. They are allowed by the way it's allowed your argument is to allow that activity to be allowed because he is attempting to investigate the ownership of property. All of that because you set off an alarm in a store because someone forgot to deactivate a tag.

Did this happen to me? Nope. Has it happened yup ask Cockrell it happened. Did the guy have the right to detain me because I stole something? I don't think so when you watch me walk from a register and out a door with a delay that could have been set off by someone else or anything else but assuming I did set it off could have been one of those accidents cashier deactivated the tag. Could I have just shown the guy what was in my bag? Yes. I didn't want to I had things to do people to see and the law gives me the authority to walk freely over this darn state as long as I don't do anything illegal. Now the question is not can they detain me the question is was that alarm enough to warrant a resonable belief I stole something from that store? Majority here say yes it was. While I may disagree for reasons I have said many times and the two cases discussing this area from my research that the employees needed more than the anti-theft device. Carr supports that it was part of the process but I am left wondering as stated above the white unmarked bag played a role in this. The court mentions the bag multiple times in the review of lawful detainment.

It is also interesting that the bill didn't get passed with this in it:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/77 ... 00966S.doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; This would require retailers to post notice about the anti-theft device being usable as resonable belief. No different then our other signs. To me they knew it would cause problem and to me the few that wanted it knew it wasn't enough.

As I said before PD is investigating the right to detain. If I get the police report and see something that gives rise to support one way or the other in that I will let everyone know. LEO did not judge one way or the other but citied it could go either way. No different than of the 5 attorneys I talked to three of them said its worth taking to court with 1 saying they don't handle that area and the other saying it was something she wanted to look into more.

[EEllis]

Agreed - a pat down for weapons is allowed when it can be justified for safety, but a search even for contraband/stolen goods to which I was referring is not. Except the case in DC that I mentioned, which was very curious to me. Courts basically ruled the agents were police, at least the way I read it.

In Texas a merchant is allowed to investigate with reason and that does include searches. They can't do a general shake down tho. If they see someone put something in a pocket for instance then they can check someones pocket. They need to be able to justify where and what they are searching. As to the agents being police it may have to do with admissibility of evidence and using the same guidelines as police but without the opinion who knows.

You're a smart person look it up. It gave them protection from 4th amendment violation.

You didn't give enough info to look up. Just where the case was and almost nothing else besides what you think it might mean. Way to ignore the main point to get snarky about some minor comment.