Oh, come on. Liberal laws. If some asshole comes diving on a person from a store doorway, and causes harm, then where is the political stance of the person who gets to sue? There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming the person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically.
But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole property. That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered.
Pfui.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
IMHO, if you steal, you deserve what happens to you. The simple solution is to simply not steal. If you are injured and are found innocent, then you have a legitimate reason to file against the store or security. Its the lax laws that do not discourage crime.
The _law_ is liberal, Charlie. Stick that chip over to the side somewhere beyond your shoulder.
No, there is NOT a way of restraining someone who wants to walk away except to restrain them by applying greater and opposite force. Makes me laugh when I see cop shows where the perp is held at gunpoint. Unless he's an idiot, he knows that the officer is not allowed to shoot. He can keep walking away until, of course, he's tackled. Oh yes, presumption of innocence goes beyond arrest; guilt's a matter for the courts to decide, so your MAYBE is always a maybe, even when they're wearing six pairs of designer jeans.
Yup, I guess you're right. Correct, that is. Obviously right. The Constitution is all screwed up, according to you, because the presumption of innocence comes from that source.
There must be a lot of idiots around, by the way. They keep getting caught. Legally enough so that we have something like 1 person in 140 in jail in this country.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Being a former security officer, I can tell you there is more than one way someone, unfortunately it generally takes physical force to do it. I can also tell you that depending on the state, firm you work for, local laws, and store, that there are times when you are NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to touch a person unless you are willing to personally "citizens arrest" that individual and then take full reprecussion if that person is found innocent of charges. Furthermore if you do hold that person against their will YOU can be charged with False Imprisonment/holding someone against their will. I believe, and this is MY opinion, that the laws are way too lax and that too many people get away with too much junk because of lawyers (not all) that want to make a quick buck. For example
- somoene broke into a house, and cut their leg on the glass that THEY broke and sued the homeowner and won. - someones family filed a wrongful death suit against a homeowner who shot and killed a person who broke into their home. - someone was awarded a large sum of money for spilling HOT COFFEE from a popular restaurant drive through
Damn, someone has been busy, and we are paying for it
stepping off the soapbox, breathing in fresh air while I still can for free
"Citizens' Arrest" applies only to a felony in most states. Retail fraud (Shoplifting) is a misdemeanor until a specified value is passed. That's why most stores take the hit rather than the risk.
It could be a policeman doing the chasing and tackeling and with the liberal laws he could be in trouble even if he told the suspect to stop.
If you were inocent, you would have every right to take action against the person chasing you. If you were seen taking something and not paying, "stealing", don't piss on my shoe and tell me it is raining.
Which IMHO is part of the problem. Ir law breakers had the fear of being punished, they may not break so many laws. If some one is seen stealing, he is not a suspect in the eyes of most people, he is truely guilty of stealing. But, unfortunately, the liberal laws protect the criminal. Again, don't let the criminal piss on your shoe and tell you is raining.
Oh, bullshit. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice, with the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty.
Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people get away with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the right to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all.
If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though, had perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners, or about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular rights around arrest and incarceration.
Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them. But I don't want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket because they didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them following me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things. I'm too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure as hell remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going down.
And then call the lawyers.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
I understand your thinking here but the constitution is not perfect and todays thief has had 200+ years to learn how to get around the law. Presumption of innocense should not be applicable when there is no doubt that some one is stealing and you tell them to stop.
And they keep getting out and continuing a life of crime.
Now imagine if getting caught was not a good thing. I wonder how many people would look for alternatives to stealing if they knew that their odds of being hurt when running away from a crime were greater. I'm am not saying that everyone shoud be tackeled and hurt, just those that have not learned to stop when being chased by the police.
Liberal laws help keep the good people honest but only protect the criminal.
Ad hominem and strawmen, as always. I merely corrected YOUR misapprehension about the presumption of innocence, which means whether caught in flagrante or not, you are not a thief until convicted.
"There are other ways of stopping a thief, assuming the person really is a thief, that do no include harming him physically. But, hey, we have to remember. He stole property. Or MAYBE he stole property. That's much more important than any injury that might be suffered."
Unfortunately, as indicated, there are NO legal ways for citizens to stop an innocent individual, a fact which even the shoplifters know well. That's why they keep walking. A police officer is somewhat protected by probable cause, which includes accusation by a citizen. From that point on, there is a criminal and tort system which asserts the obligation of the authorities, not the citizenry, to abide by the law.
Last year at a grocery store near where I live, the male suspect died.
He was stealing diapers I believe. He suffocated. The security guards held him on the ground with their knees on his chest. He couldn't breath. Suffocation by chest compression, should be covered in training courses.
Don't go willingly. Make sure you get falsly detained. And be sure it is an embarrassing scene with them dragging you off. You have to cover all the angles.
No, simply that the suspect stop running when a police officer is chasing him. If the officer breaks a law then he will have to deal with that problem. But If you run from a policeman and he tells you to stop and you don't, you are just asking for problems as well you should be.
You are blowing this out of proportion. I beleive the original idea was someond being hurt when stealing. Cops do have the legal right to order anyone to stop and to stop that person.
It is not a perfect world and never will be as long as we allow criminals to rule our lives and get away with breaking the law. Still I believe that a policeman should work within the law but a policeman is only human and if you piss him off you should expect the consequenses. When people stop respecting the policemans athority they should not expect to be treated like royalty.
But the liberal laws protect them. It has to be up to the police officers to put this fear into the criminals. Jail time obviousely does not work. The only thing most criminals fear is being beaten up.
Criminals do not want this to happen either. I seriousely doubt that you will be jumped if you simply cooperate and show them that you don't have something that you have not paid for.
And if you had actually stolen something while being treated this way, the liberal laws have failed again. When did the the citizens loose the right to protect their property?
Citizens arrest applies to any crime, misdemeanor or felony as long as the citizen is willing to see it through, cases in point :
A delivery driver ran me and my wife off the road, misdemeanor because no physical damage was done, arrested by me after getting license plate, investigating, and finally arresting
A drunk driver, arrested by me, because when I called it in the cops said since they didnt see they couldnt pull him unless he was driving funny, nevermind he knocked over a mailbox, but since I was the one who saw it, only I could prove it with my word, arrested by me, convicted
Assisting an officer who was pushed down by a "bystander" because his brother was being arrested, cop didnt see it, but guess what, I did, ok the cop got to arrest that one :-)
Point being, anyone can have someone arrested on *ANY* charge provided they are willing to see it through
I am gonna show my age, and perversness, A long time ago I saw on the back of a mag, believe it was , well nevermind what it was lol, but a cop covered in soot carrying out a child from a fire, with the caption "And you still call him a pig"
There are some people out there who will only respect a policeman/fireman/paramedic only when they are helping them. And if they are not helping them, they dont care
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.