EEllis wrote:Charlies.Contingency wrote:
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 problem with this line of thought is that it's attaching a business opinion and somehow making legal use of that. A security officer can do the same as any person who is being ripped off. While it may be foolish we don't tell people that they are only allowed to "go so far" to stop someone who is robbing them. Business decisions should be separate from criminal legal issues.
I did not put a business aspect into, but a security officer aspect into it. You can do whatever you feel like of course if somebody is stealing "YOUR" property, but a security officer should not be encouraged to do things, such as were described by the OP. Most security companies should have a good set of SOPs or SOGs they have their officers must follow. I would like to see their use of force continuum that calls for use of pepper spray on the drive or a vehicle that is attempting to flee from you. There is generally a plain and simple line that must be drawn before bumping up the use of force. I am criticizing officer action, not shopkeeper rights, or what should be considered justifiable force in a similar situation. Sorry for not better articulating my statements, I hope you ser my angle now. I have no intention of debating shopkeeper rights, that's too gray of an area for me to get into.
As always, calling me out on something!
(Read posts in order, and only intention was to offer a rebuttle to Ellis so it would be better understood what my previous was about.)
