TexasCHLforum.com

***Sigh***

Your "excuse me sir..." is not an act of battery, so it does not apply. Please re-read what I said and then feel free to comment. Nobody lays a finger on my kid or I. EVER...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

BrassMonkey wrote:Call me a bad guy. Someone commits an act of battery against me, store employee or not. They are going down. There are no warnings. There is no I will give you to the count of three. The threat will be stopped. Period. Cite me, take me to jail. Whatever...

What "threat"?

"Excuse me sir. The inventory control alarm went off when you left the store. Could I please look in your bag to make sure everything was properly rung up?"

No store employee is going to commit an act of battery against you just because an alarm went off as you were walking out. (Now if someone actually saw you steal something that would be a different story, but we are assuming here that you are totally innocent.)

So it seems to me that you are getting all huffy over absolutely nothing.

I think it is safe to say that if you respond to the above with any sort of force, you will be taken to jail, and rightfully so.

You're carrying a gun in public. You have an obligation to AVOID conflicts. Don't go looking for them out of thin air.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Comments have been made about rampant false alarms. I have walked out of stores thousands of times in my life and I can recall a false alarm on a security device only about 3 ro 4 times. If a store manager testifies in your trial (civil or criminal) that false alarms make up a very small percentage of the times they go off, then you are probably going to lose. Now, if the store does have a track record of "excessive" false alarms, then a jury could also decide that the triggering of an alarm does not constitute reasonable belief that a theft is in progress.

Chas.

If you go to "common stores", just stand in line and listen and you will hear that alarm go off at least 1 in 100 times. I think most people would agree that you are not in a store long enough that a 1000 checked out customers leave, and that alarm sings regularly. Average 30mins in a store, that is 33 people per minute checked out. Please, these don't even have 33 register opened at one time and they sure don't take 1 minute either.

But anyway, I have the solution. Was going to wait until the Patent Office opens on Tuesday, but will go ahead and release it now, claiming all copyrights and trademarks. LOL.
It is called F.A.R. False Alarm Refund. It will revolutionize the industry and save billions of dollars and increase the capture rate of thieves in stores. Basically, store should put into policy that they will REFUND the customer $5 whenever they have a false alarm.
That would cause these cashiers to check your items properly and dramatically decrease these incidents and they can take the money out of the stores profit.
I bet everyone would stop and return grinning, knowing they are about to get $5. Plus the added incentive is that some stores will have increase traffic and ultimately HAPPY CUSTOMERS. Especially, if they can't demagnetize items.

And by the way, there was a post on here not too long ago where some best buy weenie deicide to lay hsi hands on one of us, and reportedly was booted to the stock room. So blanket statements about "store employees" are not appropriate.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

BrassMonkey wrote:Call me a bad guy. Someone commits an act of battery against me, store employee or not. They are going down. There are no warnings. There is no I will give you to the count of three. The threat will be stopped. Period. Cite me, take me to jail. Whatever...

What "threat"?

"Excuse me sir. The inventory control alarm went off when you left the store. Could I please look in your bag to make sure everything was properly rung up?"

No store employee is going to commit an act of battery against you just because an alarm went off as you were walking out. (Now if someone actually saw you steal something that would be a different story, but we are assuming here that you are totally innocent.)

So it seems to me that you are getting all huffy over absolutely nothing.

I think it is safe to say that if you respond to the above with any sort of force, you will be taken to jail, and rightfully so.

You're carrying a gun in public. You have an obligation to AVOID conflicts. Don't go looking for them out of thin air.

This was not directed at me, but I am going to respond for myself anyway. Nope...

TX Rancher wrote:Liberty:

Just a question to help me understand your stance.

If you were 10-50 ft outside the store (probably as far as you would make it before someone approached you) and a store employee came up to you and said “Sir, did you hear the alarm going off when you went through the door? According to store policy I would like to check your bag to make sure everything was properly scanned�. During this time, they are not touching you, or making any aggressive moves, and the above comments were said politely, would you comply?

I like it. A parallel if you would.

If I tell the city my water bill is wrong and they prove it is correct, I have to pay 10 dollars.

If I tell the city my water bill is wrong and they cannot prove it is correct, or I prove it incorrect, where's my 10 bucks?

Lucky45 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Comments have been made about rampant false alarms. I have walked out of stores thousands of times in my life and I can recall a false alarm on a security device only about 3 ro 4 times. If a store manager testifies in your trial (civil or criminal) that false alarms make up a very small percentage of the times they go off, then you are probably going to lose. Now, if the store does have a track record of "excessive" false alarms, then a jury could also decide that the triggering of an alarm does not constitute reasonable belief that a theft is in progress.

Chas.

If you go to "common stores", just stand in line and listen and you will hear that alarm go off at least 1 in 100 times. I think most people would agree that you are not in a store long enough that a 1000 checked out customers leave, and that alarm sings regularly. Average 30mins in a store, that is 33 people per minute checked out. Please, these don't even have 33 register opened at one time and they sure don't take 1 minute either.

But anyway, I have the solution. Was going to wait until the Patent Office opens on Tuesday, but will go ahead and release it now, claiming all copyrights and trademarks. LOL.
It is called F.A.R. False Alarm Refund. It will revolutionize the industry and save billions of dollars and increase the capture rate of thieves in stores. Basically, store should put into policy that they will REFUND the customer $5 whenever they have a false alarm.
That would cause these cashiers to check your items properly and dramatically decrease these incidents and they can take the money out of the stores profit.
I bet everyone would stop and return grinning, knowing they are about to get $5. Plus the added incentive is that some stores will have increase traffic and ultimately HAPPY CUSTOMERS. Especially, if they can't demagnetize items.

I'm amazed at the "bravado" displayed by certain individuals as it pertains to their confrontation with store employees.

First, I agree that the store employee should not attempt to physically restrain you and I doubt there is a retail organization that condones this. In these instances the employee would be on his own.

I disagree with non-compliance of a request to verify that all items were deactivated properly in an attempt to determine theft. While you may know you are an upstanding citizen, the store employee does not. Having worked in retail loss prevention before I can tell you that thieves come in all shapes and sizes from kids to old ladies.

These devices, though they may be annoyances and are not perfect, are designed primarily not as a means to catch thieves, but as deterrents to prevent loss. Loss costs the business money, which subsequently costs us in higher prices. In the end we pay for those stolen items.

Carjackers and bums... well, you make it sound like there is an equal number of both. How many carjackings have there been in that parking lot? Store employees usually wear some uniform that distinguishes them from both carjackers and bums. There surely is a thin line between vigilance and paranoia.

This is not about compliance, it's about cooperation. How difficult is it to take two minutes to go through your receipt with the store employee. Being difficult only makes it problematic for all involved and LEOs have much better things to focus on than such small squabble.

I am extremely busy from the time I leave the house until the time I get home. I am in and out of stores in a very short period of time. I don't shop, I buy. I have zero time to dilly dally with some store employee over a receipt for MY property. A 2 minute infringment on my time is just too much, and in this country, it is my right to move around freely and unimpeded. orry..

jason wrote:I'm amazed at the "bravado" displayed by certain individuals as it pertains to their confrontation with store employees.

First, I agree that the store employee should not attempt to physically restrain you and I doubt there is a retail organization that condones this. In these instances the employee would be on his own.

I disagree with non-compliance of a request to verify that all items were deactivated properly in an attempt to determine theft. While you may know you are an upstanding citizen, the store employee does not. Having worked in retail loss prevention before I can tell you that thieves come in all shapes and sizes from kids to old ladies.

These devices, though they may be annoyances and are not perfect, are designed primarily not as a means to catch thieves, but as deterrents to prevent loss. Loss costs the business money, which subsequently costs us in higher prices. In the end we pay for those stolen items.

Carjackers and bums... well, you make it sound like there is an equal number of both. How many carjackings have there been in that parking lot? Store employees usually wear some uniform that distinguishes them from both carjackers and bums. There surely is a thin line between vigilance and paranoia.

This is not about compliance, it's about cooperation. How difficult is it to take two minutes to go through your receipt with the store employee. Being difficult only makes it problematic for all involved and LEOs have much better things to focus on than such small squabble.

nitrogen wrote: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?

I wondered this too way back when, lol

KBCraig wrote:

nitrogen wrote: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?

TX Rancher wrote:Liberty:

Just a question to help me understand your stance.

If you were 10-50 ft outside the store (probably as far as you would make it before someone approached you) and a store employee came up to you and said “Sir, did you hear the alarm going off when you went through the door? According to store policy I would like to check your bag to make sure everything was properly scanned�. During this time, they are not touching you, or making any aggressive moves, and the above comments were said politely, would you comply?

I guess it depends on my mood, the time of day and demeanor of the person asking.
The thing is if I saw a person rapidly aproaching me as to overtake me, I don't believe I would be likely to be playing social games with this person. If the person surprised and popped up and asks t see my reciept I might quickly show it to them ..if they want to go through my bags while I stand in the hot Texas sun and take up more than a few seconds of my time I would demand firmly that they stay away from me. My time and safety is valuable to me. I hope that I'm aware enough to keep such a person from sneaking up on me.

Wow, I am amazed at this discourse. Normally, I try to ignore the general idiocy of some who post frequently. However, the "Live Free or Die" mantra is strong in this thread.

Your rights do not include assaulting a store worker for asking you to stop. Your rights do not include assaulting a store worker for touching you on the arm.

You do have the right to complain about an improper contact. You do have th right to file charges, if appropriate, against an improper contact.

You do have the right to be sued into the Stone Age for acting like a fool and escalating a simple error into a full blown assault.

Here is a tip: Don't act like a fool if the RFID tag was not properly removed. Simple. Problem solved. No real delay. No significant harm.

Escalation of force can bite you hard in both the criminal and civil courts.

I'll take my chances.

jason wrote:I'm amazed at the "bravado" displayed by certain individuals as it pertains to their confrontation with store employees.

First, I agree that the store employee should not attempt to physically restrain you and I doubt there is a retail organization that condones this. In these instances the employee would be on his own.

I think that my remark about poping someone who who physically attempts to stop me triggered the response. I still stand by that. I will not give up the right to protect myself.

jason wrote: I disagree with non-compliance of a request to verify that all items were deactivated properly in an attempt to determine theft. While you may know you are an upstanding citizen, the store employee does not. Having worked in retail loss prevention before I can tell you that thieves come in all shapes and sizes from kids to old ladies.

Muggers, thieves and beggers acome in all shapes dress and sizes.

jason wrote: These devices, though they may be annoyances and are not perfect, are designed primarily not as a means to catch thieves, but as deterrents to prevent loss. Loss costs the business money, which subsequently costs us in higher prices. In the end we pay for those stolen items.

I don't have any beefs with the equipment. I just don't care to be assaulted in a parking lot.

jason wrote: Carjackers and bums... well, you make it sound like there is an equal number of both. How many carjackings have there been in that parking lot? Store employees usually wear some uniform that distinguishes them from both carjackers and bums. There surely is a thin line between vigilance and paranoia.

I don't know who is who, thats why I don't wish to stick around these guys to find out what they are really up to. The title of this thread is about an employee that chased someone in the parking lot. I figure any employee that has the nerve to chase and confront me in a parking lot is a wannabee Dirty Harry or something. If they want to approach me than can do it before I leave the store.

I'm sorta surprised so many folks have taken issue with this. Not talking to strangers, and not letting an aggressor get a physical advantage on ourselves is basic personal safety. I've found that following a few real basic rules and I've managed to get through life with darn few physical confrontations.

jason wrote: This is not about compliance, it's about cooperation. How difficult is it to take two minutes to go through your receipt with the store employee. Being difficult only makes it problematic for all involved and LEOs have much better things to focus on than such small squabble.

I tend to be a lot more cooperative in the airconditiong of a busy store with lots of witnesses, than I am in a parking lot in the hot Texas Sun. If I set off an alarm because of their incompetance and it takes them until I get out in the parking lot to catch up to me, I'm not going to be sympathetic to them. Why should I compromise my safety, because of their incompetence.

Nazrat wrote:Wow, I am amazed at this discourse.

Me too.

Frankly, I don't even believe most of it. It's just my guess mind you, but I think that in real life most people would respond in a civil manner to a polite request by a store employee, including most of the people on this forum.

A polite request, maybe. A polite request contains ZERO physical contact.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Nazrat wrote:Wow, I am amazed at this discourse.

Me too.

Frankly, I don't even believe most of it. It's just my guess mind you, but I think that in real life most people would respond in a civil manner to a polite request by a store employee, including most of the people on this forum.