Handling Mall Cops, Wall Mart Commandos and Rogue LEOs

[TPaine7]

This story may be biased considering the author also penned "Slam Dunking Wal-Mart" and "The Case Against Wal-Mart", but it doesn't sound beyond the realm of possibility.

I know that legislatures have empowered stores to hold shoppers for "reasonable" periods of time if they suspect shoplifting. But I also believe that they have no right to interrogate a child without a parent or adult guardian (and a store manager is certainly not a guardian) to support them.

I know there are police officers and lawyers here, so I would like some free education on the law--the actual law and the practical "law"--so that I can begin to understand the landscape in these situations.

As the two girls left Wal-Mart, two men--who neither produced identification nor asked the two teenagers for their I.D.--stopped the girls, and accused them of shoplifting. The men physically forced the teenagers back into the store. James saw the men walking his sister and her friend to the other end of the store. He made his way over to the girls and asked the men what was taking place. He was told the teens were being taken to an interrogation room. James stated that he was his sister's guardian and as a minor she needed to have a parent or guardian present. The Wal-Mart employees told James he wasn't allowed in the room. A Wal-Mart manager appeared and stated that she would serve as guardian for Destiny. James refused to agree to his sister or her friend being questioned without his presence, and he tried to follow the girls into the interrogation room.

The girls complied with the order to enter the room, but when James followed, he was pushed out of the way and the door was shut in his face. James says he could hear the men yelling at the girls. One asked, "Why don't you people respect us?" James then called 911. Two Davenport police officers arrived. They didn't identify themselves to James nor did they ask for his version of the incident. They took their place in front of the door.

Within seconds of the officers' arrival, the door to the room opened, and Destiny ran out toward her brother. Destiny had not been told to stay in the room, nor was she being physically restrained. She never reached her brother's side. One of the officers applied an arm bar that put Destiny face down on the floor of Wal-Mart. The officer then dropped his knee into the middle of her back. As her forehead hit the floor, Destiny was lifted up by the back of her shirt and spun around so that her forehead hit the wall. Her face was then manually turned by the officer and pressed into the wall. The officer turned Destiny around so that she was facing him and pressed down on her shoulders until she was sitting on the floor.

As Destiny hit the floor James took a step forward and said, "That is my sister." The second officer told James to step back, and he stepped back. But when Destiny's forehead hit the wall, James stepped forward again and asked, "Why are you doing that to my sister?" The second officer then put James' hands behind his back. James says he knew in that instant that this was an entirely new game and he said nothing else.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/another-wal-mart-shoplift_b_376228.html

Let's change the scenario and pose a question:

Instead of

James stated that he was his sister's guardian and as a minor she needed to have a parent or guardian present. The Wal-Mart employees told James he wasn't allowed in the room. A Wal-Mart manager appeared and stated that she would serve as guardian for Destiny. James refused to agree to his sister or her friend being questioned without his presence, and he tried to follow the girls into the interrogation room.

Let's say that

James stated that he was his sister's guardian and as a minor she needed to have a parent or guardian present. The Wal-Mart employees told James he wasn't allowed in the room. A Wal-Mart manager appeared and stated that she would serve as guardian for Destiny. James refused to agree to his sister or her friend being questioned without his presence, and informed the manager that he regarded the attempted removal of the children from his presence as attempted felony kidnapping, which he was prepared to prevent with deadly force.

The manager failing to relent, James drew his concealed weapon and (as the situation required) a) engaged the kidnappers until the the threat was eliminated or b) removed the girls from the premises and drove them to the nearest police station.

Q1: What would happen in the real world? What would happen to someone with a good legal team and some clout? What would happen to a working class black man from the 'hood?

And I don't think the police here did their profession proud. It seems to me that they just knew that little Destiny was guilty and didn't deserve to be treated as little Tiffany from the suburbs would be. And their "official action" sounds like the cowardly act of power crazed sadistic bullies. I hope it's not true, but fear that it might be. Which leads me to my next question:

Q2: What are the practical limits of police power, if any? What, if any, police abuse is severe enough to legally justify defensive action? How about in the real "legal" world? And after the defensive action, how can you survive? Flee to the nearest FBI office to surrender? Or is it simply a matter of deciding what abuse of your family you are willing to die to prevent?

[NewMoonTherian]

1. Not smart enough to even begin...

weeding through the legal nightmare this would incur, but thank you for posting the story. In a country with monsters like this in positions of authority, how could anyone be nervous about a few honest citizens with guns?

[LiberalFighter]

2. A good attorney should be able to destroy both the police officers and Wal-Mart in that town.

[Pavulon]

41. dupe

dupe

[Arctic Dave]

3. I believe this girl will be a millionaire in a couple of years. Thanks to Wally mart and the city

who employs the dumbass cop.

[jgraz]

4. I'm sorry. Your solution for a black man falsely accused of a crime

is for him to pull a gun on a white manager?

What world do you live in? :rofl:

[TPaine7]

5. I pity you,

you can't even read when the subject involves guns. Your selective illiteracy and intellectual dishonesty have clearly not improved since your refusal to acknowlege the obvious historical meaning of the 14th Amendment (as shown by your own source, as I recall).

Get a trusted person who can reason in the presence of the concept "gun" to explain the OP to you. Get her to verify that when the black man was dealing with the manager he hadn't been accused of anything.

I know you can't trust me--I'm not a clueless, illiterate, dishonest, rabidly antigun phobic nut.

[jgraz]

6. No, I don't trust you because you continually make cynical use of race to justify your gun lust

Just like your previous appropriation of the Dred Scott decision.

What's obvious is you don't care (or understand) one whit about the real situation of poor black people in this country. You just use them because you think it will make liberals more receptive to your arguments.

It's disgusting.

[TPaine7]

7. I am black, oh clueless one,

and I daresay that I know--and care--a lot more about it than you ever will.

If you could reason on the subject (or even exercise basic literacy), you would understand that Dred Scott and the 14th Amendment are inextricably linked by history; the 14th Amendment was a response to that legal abomination. That early history is an all too clear example of the warping of reality to achieve an objective; a tradition followed all too faithfully by you and other anti-gun sophists.

Only someone under the gun control reality distortion field would pawn off a correct explication of history as a corrupt tactic.

But what has any of this to do with your inability to read or reason? Let' see, we've had condescension grounded solidly in illiteracy followed in swift succession by misrepresentation and false accusation used as a diversionary tactic? And this is your idea of debate?

Yawn. I've seen your arsenal before, and if anyone here is too stupid to see through your BS on this thread alone, they deserve to be taken in. In other words, unless you shock me with a stunningly brilliant piece of sophistry (or... gasp... a sincere, intellectually honest argument), I see no reason to continue this exchange.

You're dismissed.

(I'm perfectly happy to talk to people who disagree with me civilly. Condescending clowns who don't understand the OP and sit in judgement of my motives are another matter altogether.)

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

40. I have this strange sense of déja vu...

Ah yes, back in October, jgraz opined to me that

Like most gun lovers, your attitude toward suicide and depression is appalling. This is not a matter of choice and self-determination. It's a matter of biochemistry and genetics. You seem to want to pretend that science is completely clueless about the causes of depression and suicide. It's a pretty well-understood phenomenon, but treatment is a bit difficult when the first symptom is a bullet out the back of the head.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=261945&mesg_id=262887

At this juncture, I pointed out that I was actually diagnosed with major depressive disorder last year. Hopefully, the implication was clear, namely (to borrow your phrase, TPaine7) that I very probably know and care a damn sight more about the plight of depressives than jgraz does.

So I'm seeing a pattern emerging here, namely that jgraz likes to beat others over the head with their supposed callous lack of concern for certain groups, only to find that his interlocutor actually is a member of that group. At best, this indicates a rather ugly paternalistic streak, in which jgraz benevolently knows better what's good for you than you yourself do, but a more cynical (though not unfounded) interpretation is that jgraz doesn't actually give a flying fuck about the groups for which he professes concern, and his primary interest is in using them to advance his own political agenda.

[TPaine7]

46. Yeah

It could be either or even elements of both. It's sad in a desperate, self-righteous way.

[east texas lib]

53. No, what's disgusting is the PC bullshit that some here are so completely invested in...

Get a clue.

[PavePusher]

56. So banning firearms would improve the...

"real situation of poor black people in this country"? How well has that worked in D.C., Chicago, L.A., 1870's-1970's southern states, or anywhere else firearms were de facto banned for Americans of African extraction?

And you accuse others of racism? Wow.

What about the poor white, yellow, pink, purple, green-polka-dotted and albino folks? Don't they count too?

Edit: Yes, I can play absurd too. But I also call it what it is: absurd.

[paulsby]

9. as a police officer, who has investigated more than a few of these

my brief answer: it depends (tm)

that's not a dodge. it's because the laws vary GREATLY from state to state. and btw, the power to detain shoplifters is nothing new. it's existed about as long as our nation has, in one form of the law or the other.

in some states, an agent of the store actually makes a citizen's arrest. that's how it worked in hawaii. we would actually instruct the store agent to inform the suspect that HE was arresting them, and we would review his paperwork, interview him, interrogate the suspect, and if it was kosher, make the booking

most states , a store agent isn't making a citizen's arrest, but is allowed to detain for a reasonable period of time. laws vary GREATLY in regards to juvies. in my state (WA), they CANNOT release juveniles once they detain them. they must either contact the parents or the police to release the kid. i'm not sure if that's black letter law, but it's policy for most stores.

the kidnapping thing is exactly what i would expect from somebody who gets their law knowledge from teevee :) iow, not even remotely justifiable

also, another thing. AS USUAL, when it comes to incidents involving alleged police or corporate misconduct, people are assuming that everything this guy claims is true. that's an assumption, but assuming arguendo that he is being accurate...

one major difference between detentions by store agents and by cops, is the evidence required.

cops can detain a person based on 'reasonable suspicion'... see: terry v. ohio

store agents (in most states) can only detain if they in fact WITNESSED the crime. it's an even higher standard than probable cause. some jurisdictions refer to it as "in fact committed" to distinguish it from PC. also, store agents, UNLIKE POLICE do not enjoy lawsuit protection. cops have (iirc the term) "qualified immunity". store agent has no immunity. iow, if a cop arrests on good faith, he's golden.

based on the verbal description, and assuming it's true (which is a huge assumption), the force by the cops sounds excessive and unjustified.

[TPaine7]

10. Thanks, you were one of the folks I hoped to hear from.

Just to be clear,

the kidnapping thing is exactly what i would expect from somebody who gets their law knowledge from teevee iow, not even remotely justifiable

If two MALE store employees want to separate a man from his minor daughter or relative, take her in a back room and interrogate / strip search / or basically do whatever they please as far as he knows, he has no legally respected right to resist?

If you say so I believe it, but that law is bad IHNSHO.

I don't get citizen's arrest, either, at least by store personnel. The law says you must submit to police arrest, even if it's legally defective. Is the same true of merchant citizen's arrest? If you know you didn't steal anything and you kick his ass and walk out--your innocence being proven in court later--will you be charged with "resisting arrest"?

[paulsby]

12. i'm all about clear

as for the "kidnapping' thang. first of all, are we talking a 10 yr old or a 17 yr old? also, fwiw, walmart's policy is that any time a female is detained, they HAVE to have a female employee in the room, btw. not just males. i would assume that policy was followed here. what i said was - it wasn't kidnapping. does he have a right to resist? if the store people are clearly recognizable as store employees, he has every right to follow them to the office door. i can't speak for the laws of that state, as to whether they have a right to detain a juvenile apart from the parent when the parent is present. and again, we assume everything is as the guy CLAIMS it was. maybe when the store employees approach, he started flipping out on them, and that;'s why they didn't want to allow him in the room while they detained the kid and called police. there are just way too many holes to fill in, to really know what happened. even if he is being 100% truthful, he will still perceive things based on his "lens" and seletively not report stuff that makes him look bad. as somebody who has taken 1,000's of statements and interviewed thousands of victims, witnesses, etc. that's a reality you learn quickly.

as for the citizen's arrest. in many (if not most states), the store agents are not making a citizen's arrest. in some they are. in brief, the agent has the right to detain you if they (depending on the state) either saw the crime committed (most stores require constant surveillance of suspect form the time they took the item, concealed it, to walked past the registers w/o paying) or have PC. if you resist, it would up the crime from a mere minor theft to a ROBBERY (theft with force used either in commission or in escape). if you could prove that the person did not have a lawful basis to detain you, then you wouldn't be guilty of assault, if you used REASONABLE force to resist. the problem is that if you assault a store owner, or anybody else trying to apprehend you for a crime, you have just upgraded from minor theft (a petty misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor) to ROBBERY.

that's a big problem. if the guy detains you, you certainly have the right to request that police be called.

but again, if you resist a detention for shoplift, you have now committed robbery. IF you believe (or know) you didn't do what you are accused of doing, your best bet is to submit to the detention. protest your innocence verbally, but don't resist. then, you have a KICKASS lawsuit for false imprisonment, etc. and can win big $$$$. why resist? what does it gain you. if you get detained by security, that means you have to go to an office and sit in a chair for a few minues while they fill out paperwork, take your picture, and trespass you from the store. that's it. 15-30 minutes. many will just do this and release and not even call the pollice , because they either aren;t going to file charges (preferring to go the civil restitution route and trespass you) or because the local DA allows private stores to submit reports for prosecution w/o a police intermediary.

most stores, and certainly stores like walmart with a VERY deep pocket have very tight rules about detaining shoplifters. ime, they will not detain unless they saw the person take the item from the shelf, conceal it, and walk past the registers w/o paying. they . by policy usually must have CONSTANT surveillance at all times. trust me, walmart is not about risking a million dollar lawsuit to recover a $30 item. i've dealt with these people and they have very strict guidelines for their security.

like i said, in many cases, it is not technically a merchant arrest, merely a detention, but it is EFFECTIVELY the same thing. your liberty is restrained for a reasonable period of time, and the force used must be appropriate for the suspected crime.

i would LOVE to be falsely detained by a store. it means an easy lawsuit settlement all because you were inconvenienced for 15-30 minutes. that;'s a good deal, frankly. like i said, cops have a high level of protection against lawsuits. stores dont.

[jeepnstein]

22. I was falsley detained once...

The loss prevention guy approached me. Said he was with the store and asked me to come with him. Once we got to the interview room he asked me about the large bulge under my jacket. I removed my coat and he saw that it was a 1911, two mags, a pair of handcuffs, and my badge all attached to a shoulder holster. Much hilarity ensued. Had I spouted off and brayed like a jackass I would have still been detained until they established my identity.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Fry's did something like this to me once.

I ignored the reciept check guy on the way out, and they called the cops as I was walking to my car. Of course, when I got pulled over in the lot, guess what I had been doing that day?

We just got back from the gravel pits off exit 47, the back of the car was full of guns.

Being cooperative and not failing the attitude test with the police is a helpful thing. We were free to go in less than a half hour.

[TPaine7]

28. Had he physically engaged you without identifying himself or his motives,

as in this admittedly questionable story, I imagine things might have gone differently.

Apparently it helps to be a grown man (probably at least somewhat buff, being a cop) and not a teenage girl.

Rights are not a function of age, race, gender, or apparent ability to conduct oneself in a physical or legal fight. Academically speaking, of course.

[Hoopla Phil]

36. So then store security never witnessed you take anything then, but still detained you.

Where did this happen?

[jeepnstein]

38. Wal Mart of course.

I was shopping for batteries, didn't have a cart, and was dressed like a bum. I was getting ready to go on a detail that had me serving as a lookout on a warrant service. Yeah, I got profiled.

[paulsby]

45. i don't know about your state,

but in my state, that would open them up to massive lawsuits.

they have to have PC, and a bulge alone is NOT pc for shoplifting detentions.

[jeepnstein]

47. They had PC alright.

The guy who detained me was new to the job. It was his first day. The loss prevention worker who put him on me is an old friend and he pretty much knew what my reaction would be and what was under the coat. We got a good laugh out of it but the moral to the story was this; "Be absolutely sure you know the person is shoplifting before you grab them." I was just an easy way to make that clear. No blood and no foul.

My best shoplifting story is about the time I was ringing bells for the Salvation Army at that same WM. It was epic.

I think you and I would agree that this whole thread is an exercise in understanding perception and reality in situations like this. The circumstances that are painfully obvious to some have not been fully revealed to others, communication was obviously lacking, and emotions tended to rule actions. Been there and done that. I've seen things done absolutely done by the book turn into a gigantic drama class over a few poorly chosen or unheard words.

[paulsby]

49. god knows that is true

the best tool a cop has is his mouth. because with it, he can reason, gain voluntary compliance, and defuse a bad situation.

of course, it's not always going to happen, but most of the time, it will.

words are like bullets. once they leave your mouth, they can't be recalled.

as my verbal judo instructor would say "when arrow of insult is aimed at head... move head"

[PavePusher]

50. O.K., why do I have both...

Yoda and Mr. Miyagi nodding sagely in my imagination now?

[Hoopla Phil]

52. Then according to the info upthread, they violated store policy by

stopping you.

[TPaine7]

44. One of the things that galls me is that it seems that

corporations, being legal "persons," are more protected than us mere human beings. (I know for instance that corporations--unlike human beings--could exercise Second Amendment rights in the aftermath of Katrina.)

So I have another point of clarification:

if you resist a detention for shoplift, you have now committed robbery.

If a person detains a burglar in her house and the burglar resists, will that burglar have then committed robbery?

[GreenStormCloud]

48. No, the burglar will have committed stupidity in the first degree.

As author Larry Niven often has his characters saying, "Stupidity is always a capital offense."

In my house, thanks to Castle Doctrine, a burglar will not have opportunity to resist arrest. It isn't that I am bloodthirsty, but rather that if I give him a chance to resist, he may be successful at that resistance and kill me or my wife. So I will deny him the chance if I can.

[TPaine7]

11. Kidnapping is obviously not correct terminology

The store is allowed to detain suspects.

The core of my problem was their asserted power to separate a minor from a parent / acting guardian. If that forcible separation is not prevented, much worse harm could result than the store not being able to intimidate the child into a real or false confession without adult interference.

[paulsby]

13. i can;'t speak

to the laws of that particular state, in regards to the juvie thang. i've never once personally had a case where a juvenile was caught shoplifting at a place where there parent was present. it's definitely unusual.

even with cops, it varies greatly. i can walk on to a school campus, for instance, in my state, arrest the kid and interrogate him w./o a parent being present, unless he is under a certain age (and i'd have to look it up, i haven't done one of those in a while. off the top of my head, i think the cutoff age is 14 for being able to interrogate without a parent, but i could be wrong).

in some states, a cop can;'t interrogate any minor w/o a parent. it just depends.

btw, if you are interested (and it sounds like you are) in how stuff really works (vs. what is shown on teevee, etc.) i STRONGLY SUGGEST you see if your local PD (or any in the area) has a ride-along program. you get to ride along in a cop car, with a cop and see how this stuff happens firsthand, with no media filter.

it's really a great opportunity to see a side of the city you might never see, and see an entire shift from the perspective of the cop on patrol. ride-alongs are phenomenal tools to allow the public to see how their police are operating. it's one of the hallmarks of a free society. many countries don't have anything resembling ride alongs, but most police agencies where i live allow them.

[pipoman]

15. I would like to add

that for 20 years I worked on the civil side of the court system serving private process including writs of various types allowing for seizure of assets (even forcibly), removal of minors from one parent or guardian to another, as well as pre filing asset seizure (repossession...around 12,000 vehicles in 20 years). During this 20 years I had thousands of leo interactions. Seldom a post judgment seizure without leo involvement at some point. In all of those cases, including cases in areas of my state where leos didn't know me, I only had 3 or 4 incidents (out of several thousand) when police didn't act lawfully and/or respectfully. I am always leery of reports of police misconduct in cases like this one...certainly it can happen, but more often or not I believe that police react based on training and a negative reaction is usually based on the non-leo's inappropriate pre-arrest conduct. If for instance, I would run toward a police officer upon his/her arrival at the scene (as it sounds this girl did when the door opened), I would probably have ended up face down on the floor too.

I have always taught my son's to maintain their cool at all costs where police are concerned. To remain in a non threatening stance, or sit down with the palms of their hands visible to police, and remain silent and wait for the officer(s) to approach them regardless of the actions or statements of anyone else involved. Even if someone is making false accusations or statements against them, let the other people get all emotional and animated and wait their turn to give their side of the story. To identify themselves, then refuse to say anything if they are suspects or being treated as suspects. To stay calm and relay only facts if they are witnesses. Police will often side with the calm rational person on a scene, over the exited, animated person in my experience.

It is, IMO, very important to teach teens how to act with police and hammer it in through spaced repetition. We have always used examples such as the one in the OP (and often in the news) to teach our kids what went wrong and how such a response could be avoided.

[paulsby]

16. wow

great post!

[pipoman]

18. Even in traffic stops

we put our window down before the officer approaches the car, stay in the car with hands fully visible and wait for the officer to approach and make requests. When they ask for DL and insurance, we tell the officer, "my dl is in my billfold in my right rear pocket, my insurance card is in my glovebox", and if I am carrying a gun I tell them what I am carrying and where it is, then ask if I should proceed to comply with their request for documents....they always say yes, then move slowly and deliberately to comply. Too many here on du and in general want to worry about "their rights" and what they do and don't have to do, rather than acting in a responsible, understanding of the leo's position, way.

I would ask, if you, paulsby, were to respond to an incident to find one person calm, non threatening, and silent and 3 people all trying to talk at the same time accusing the calm person of some illegal act, would you not allow the person to tell their side without any offensive action toward that person? Then if the person said who they are and that they wish to remain silent, wouldn't you then calmly handcuff the person and walk them to your car, rather than putting their face into the floor and the wall, taser them and pepper spray them before cuffing them (even if the accusation was a serious offense)? I am of the opinion that most of the horror stories we hear about are the result of inappropriate actions/responses by people who are not authorities.

[PavePusher]

20. I don't want to oversimplify...

but "Too many here on du and in general want to worry about "their rights" and what they do and don't have to do, rather than acting in a responsible, understanding of the leo's position, way.", sounds a lot like "forfeit your rights and submit" to me. And I think that is a large part of the problem. If the officials with delegated authority knew that abusing it would earn them the beating and imprisonment, perhaps we wouldn't hear about so many abuses. Don't misunderstand me, I fully support officers who do their jobs within the limits of the law, but abuse should not be tolerated before, during or after the fact. And too often, during and after, there is no recourse for the citizen. It is rare, but it happens.

On a side note, let's not let the misbehaviour of the few taint the good of the vast majority (just the way we RKBA people want to be treated...).

[NewMoonTherian]

24. You've summed up my concerns with this thread perfectly.

But - having established that there are certain police abuses that can't be tolerated - what's the alternative? Doesn't resistance carry its own criminal penalty, regardless of the officer's conduct? Is there another option?

[pipoman]

42. I see

and I really don't mean I submit to the outlandish.

Two examples of times when leos overstepped on me and my reaction.

1. While serving what in my state is called a writ of execution which is a judge's order commanding me personally (I am named) to seize personal assets to satisfy a civil judgment, was handcuffed and detained while executing the order while the officers returned seized property to the respondent and allowed him to leave. I very strongly explained that the officers involved were violating a state judge's lawful order by detaining me which put the officers in contempt of court. I repeatedly demanded a supervisor be dispatched. I never raised my voice and maintained a neutral stance, but strongly urged them that they were making a rather serious mistake. Finally a supervisor arrived and lost his mind on the two young officers demanding I be released. My lawyer client lost his mind and was in the judges chambers before I left the area of the detention. Long story short the judge called the officers into his chambers, threatened to make them pay the value of the seizure personally (several thousand dollars), ultimately fining them $500 each and a letter to the chief and the city council strongly urging comprehensive, immediate written policy on the handling of civil process servers, which they soon did. My client and I discussed filing civilly and decided against it because more often than not we needed the police to help us when they were called out and semi friendly relationship may be better than a judgment.

2. A small town police chief and young officer was called by a weary neighbor calling in a suspicious vehicle while I was surveilling another residence...not uncommon. The chief arrived and I and my wife produced our private detective licenses. At that time there was no ccw in my state. The only people who could carry concealed were leos and private detectives who has a permit to carry. My license plainly stated I was permitted to carry with a list of firearms I was authorized to carry by serial #. My wife wasn't permitted. The chief immediately flew into a rage and asked if I was carrying a gun. I stated I was. He called me out at gunpoint, put me over the trunk, hit me in the head with the flashlight, disarmed me, hand cuffed me and put me in his patrol car. Then took me to his office before transporting me to the county jail. He charged me with impairing official duty which was a joke, but did me a favor by OR bonding me. The entire time I told the chief that he was making a colossal mistake. My client happened to be one of the states best civil attorneys. I talked for over an hour to no avail. The chief insisted on arresting me. The next day in municipal court, the circuit judge was gobsmacked. Ordered the chief to return my weapon immediately and asked the chief if he was sure he wanted to stand by his complaint...the idiot did. At my next hearing 2 weeks later I found out that the chief had decided to quit the post and move 1000 miles away. My client filed a suit on my behalf, ultimately I received a 5 figure apology from the city's insurance carrier.

In both of these cases I could have been loud and angry, but it undoubtedly would have resulted in some additional charge which may have stuck. My point is that the time to claim for civil rights violations is after the fact, but many civil rights violations can be simply avoided by remaining calm and rational and putting responding officers at a bit at ease. Thousands of times my standard leo body language and demeanor kept an incident between me and police from occurring.

Probably not the best choice of words in retrospect.."Too many here on du and in general want to worry about "their rights" and what they do and don't have to do, rather than acting in a responsible, understanding of the leo's position, way."

[TPaine7]

25. Thanks

During this 20 years I had thousands of leo interactions. Seldom a post judgment seizure without leo involvement at some point. In all of those cases, including cases in areas of my state where leos didn't know me, I only had 3 or 4 incidents (out of several thousand) when police didn't act lawfully and/or respectfully. I am always leery of reports of police misconduct in cases like this one...certainly it can happen, but more often or not I believe that police react based on training and a negative reaction is usually based on the non-leo's inappropriate pre-arrest conduct.

That is good to read. I've always wondered about the relative numbers, good cop to bad cop, so it's good to have independent data. I do note (or assume), however, that you were not a suspect, though, and that during most of your experience you probably understood all of the cop's motivations and tactics during an encounter.

If for instance, I would run toward a police officer upon his/her arrival at the scene (as it sounds this girl did when the door opened), I would probably have ended up face down on the floor too.

As I read it, she ran toward her brother after a traumatic, screaming interrogation. Are police trained to view a child running towards her relatives as a threat of some type?

It is, IMO, very important to teach teens how to act with police and hammer it in through spaced repetition. We have always used examples such as the one in the OP (and often in the news) to teach our kids what went wrong and how such a response could be avoided.

I couldn't agree more. Though I despise corrupt and abusive officers, we should do all that we can to understand decent cops' perspective (and ensure that our kids do too). Not only to help ensure safety, but to make the job of decent cops more tolerable. I don't imagine there's anything easy about being a decent cop.

[pipoman]

43. You're welcome

"That is good to read. I've always wondered about the relative numbers, good cop to bad cop, so it's good to have independent data. I do note (or assume), however, that you were not a suspect, though, and that during most of your experience you probably understood all of the cop's motivations and tactics during an encounter."

Everyone is a suspect when police arrive at a call. They are usually arbiters. By remaining calm and clearly stating facts and positions a volatile reaction was avoided and often they would agree with my position (even occasionally when agreeing with my position was technically the wrong position for them). Also, many of the officers I encountered had never responded to a civil process server before. Very few civil process servers in my state serve these types of orders, they are usually served by sheriffs department process servers, so they were often shocked that I could, for instance take a person's jewelery off their body, bill fold or money out of their pockets, etc. So, again, yes I was often a suspect for a while until they read my order and/or called a superior officer or city/county attorney. And yes, understanding what effect an officers training is going to have in different scenarios is important.

"As I read it, she ran toward her brother after a traumatic, screaming interrogation. Are police trained to view a child running towards her relatives as a threat of some type?"

I don't disagree that it sounds excessive for sure. The kid may have a cause for action, impossible to tell without all of the facts. It may have been avoided if the kid had been calm...maybe not..

I'm all about civil rights and at the same time not looking to buy an argument with a cop. Remedies are in place for making one's self whole if a civil rights violation occurs...there's plenty of time for that later. Most cops I encountered, by far, wanted to do the right thing, they just didn't always know what that was.

[TPaine7]

27. Great suggestion

btw, if you are interested (and it sounds like you are) in how stuff really works (vs. what is shown on teevee, etc.) i STRONGLY SUGGEST you see if your local PD (or any in the area) has a ride-along program. you get to ride along in a cop car, with a cop and see how this stuff happens firsthand, with no media filter.

I think I will.

in some states, a cop can;'t interrogate any minor w/o a parent. it just depends.

And in the states where that is so, it seems logical that a parent could resist the store forcibly violating the law, especially with the specter of molestation / child abuse / whatever in mind.

[safeinOhio]

54. I have a friend that resisted in a large box store

He had a bow tie that he wore up to the cashiers stations with his other purchases. He told the cashier and paid for it with the other stuff. The store dick thought he had a collar and stopped him as he reached the door. My friend turned and grabbed a rake that was on display and started swinging it and yelling stay away from me. He did this until the police arrived and he showed them his receipt. Store made a deal on the spot not to file false arrest suit.

[Tejas]

14. red flag

"As the two girls left Wal-Mart, two men--who neither produced identification nor asked the two teenagers for their I.D.--stopped the girls, and accused them of shoplifting. The men physically forced the teenagers back into the store."

Were this to happen locally, some bounderies would immediately be set. #1 would be which ninja got handed their ass first (a real ninja knows failure to show ID is a 1st class ticket to the emergency room). #2 would be the demand for the responding LEO to immediately summon their supervisor for rock-solid documentation of the ninja's stupidity (Sargeant in this locale).

[taurus145]

17. Slightly OT

I've begun ignoring the Wal Mart nanny at the front door. You know. The one who demands to see your receipt for the things you just bought.

A Wal Mart employee attempted to physically restrain me at the front exit in Mustang, OK a couple of years ago - 2004, I think. I'd bought a 9V battery for my aunt's lift chair emergency lowering mechanism. I put both the receipt and the battery in my pocket. (Who needs a bag for a 9V battery?) He said that he wanted to verify that I'd paid for the battery. I probably would have cooperated if I hadn't watched the jerk watch me pay for the thing.

The long and short of it is that I told him if he thought I shoplifted, he should call the police and that he'd better "take your fucking hand off my arm". I pointed out my truck and gave him the license number. That was a snap. I was in the handicapped space nearest the door. It was clearly visible.

Funny thing, I never saw a cop. I called the store manager on duty. He said that he'd investigate and get back to me. I'm still waiting for the call.

The moral of the story, give the wrong person a little bit of power...

After reading the story in the OP and given my experience with Wal Mart, I'd call the employees' actions about par for the course.

[Euromutt]

37. You have every right to refuse to submit

The checking the receipt thing is one thing at Costco, where you sign a membership agreement which includes the provision that you'll let them. The purpose of that, incidentally, at least at Costco, is not to prevent shop-lifting, but to check that the cashier didn't make any errors.

But in a place like Wal-Mart or Fry's Electronics, you have no such obligation. The moment you paid for the item, it ceases to be the store's property and becomes yours, and if you choose to breeze out the door, they have no legitimate reason to stop you.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. About thirty years ago, I was a store detective in New Orleans, LA.

Of course, the laws and legal atmosphere may have changed since then. I know they have changed greatly in Texas. In New Orleans, we were plainclothes, concealed weapons, and deputized by the City. We would wander around the store, pushing a shopping cart, watching people. When we saw someone, two of us would approach the person as they started to leave. We would ask is they forgot to pay for something? As they denied it, we would say, "I'm sure this is an embarassing conversation fror you to be having in public. Would you like to discuss the matter in private? We have an office available right here." (Our office was close to the enterance.)

If someone tried to run, we were authorized to grab them. The level of force that we used depended upon the suspect.

All of our stores had one uniformed New Orleans Police Officer on duty, 24/7 who was usually summoned when we were going to approach a shoplifter. Although, sometimes things happened quickly and he got there after the actual detention.

The suggestion above, about a CCW holder using deadly force is waaaay out of line. That isn't what they are for, and if he tried it he would be looking at jail time. Nor do I believe his account of the incident. If the account is true, everybody's best bet is to be co-operative, nonhostile, and respectful, but don't waive any rights, and call a lawyer.

My experience with teenage shoplifters was that a parent was never present, and the kid usually copped an attitude. (We had a fun trick for that. We had a bunch of last year's Yellow Pages in a spare room, and a copy was kept on the desk. There is a trick to tearing a really thick phone book in half, and we all were shown the trick. One of us, - always two in the room - would glare at the teen (Teen was always a male. NEVER did the trick with girls.) and say, "Kid, you are pissing me off." and tear the phone book in two. His eye would get huge. Then we would offer another old one to him to try. Not knowing the trick, they never could. We had one 16yr old boy that got scared and wet his pants. That was as far as we would take it. We NEVER used more force than was needed.

Depending on the amount of the shoplifting, we would release them with a warning, or turn them over to the police.

Adults could be really bad news. We had one woman attempt to run over one of our detectives, but she slammed on the brakes when he didn't get out of the way and pulled his gun. She put the car in reverse and escaped, but she had dropped her purse in the chase. She has shoplifted three carts of expensive groceries, with the help of one of the cashiers. Within minutes the cashier was arrested. From the dropped purse the police had her ID, but she skipped out of state the same day. (New Orleans is only a few minutes from Mississippi.)

It was an interesting job. Most of the dectectives were retired police officers, and when we were off the floor, they would swap stories. I learned a lot from them.

[jeepnstein]

21. I have problems with this scenario.

Firstly, since shoplifters work in teams I can see why the store was wanting to separate the parties. An individual claiming to be the guardian of a suspect don't necessarily make it so. It takes time to determine ages and identities of the suspects. You'll hear me mention time over and over again. It takes time to determine the facts of a case and how to proceed.

As for the yelling and intimidation, well, that is taped and documented by WM. Good luck getting that tape, it'll never happen.

Secondly, if one drew a weapon to stop a "kidnapping" you would be in serious danger of taking a dirt nap. While the detention is unpleasant and could result in legal hassles for the girls nobody could claim a reasonable belief that they were about to be seriously injured or killed. Depending on your state it could very well technically be kidnapping but it would be nearly impossible to get a grand jury to see it that way. I do know that if a responding officer saw an individual brandishing a firearm in a retail store, well, it would not go well for the individual with the gun.

The biggest problem I see with this scenario is the narrative is being told by someone who "knows" all the facts and can interject them into the story at his leisure. The loss prevention people and the police do not know much of anything about the situation and are being hit with demands faster than they could possibly respond. Depending on the age and appearance of the suspects it might take a while to determine whether a parent or guardian is needed. Anger ensues, things escalate, and the police then have to make an arrest and resort to a use of force to slow events down a bit more. The narrator clearly is looking for instant validation of the facts as he sees them and is not taking into account what the others do or do not know at the time. The police need time to do their job and the narrator is unwilling to allow them to have that.

The use of force on Destiny? Things happen when you are being detained or questioned. If you try to rabbit, or fight, then the continuum of force kicks in. Once the suspect is back under control you can slow down and start asking questions again.

I won't even get into the racial dynamic of the whole thing. There are as many points of view on that one as there are actors in this scenario. That just turns the whole thing into an emotional shouting match at a time when everyone should be concentrating on the facts of the arrest. Civil rights violations, if they are present, can be challenged in court. Taking on the state with a pistol at Wal Mart is not a good idea.

[TPaine7]

26. Thanks

Firstly, since shoplifters work in teams I can see why the store was wanting to separate the parties.

I understand why they want to, it's perfectly logical. I don't understand that they have the legitimate power to, especially in states where even the cops can't interrogate kids without parents or guardians present.

An individual claiming to be the guardian of a suspect don't necessarily make it so. It takes time to determine ages and identities of the suspects. You'll hear me mention time over and over again. It takes time to determine the facts of a case and how to proceed.

Good, solid point. That contributed to my education; it shaped my perspective.

As for the yelling and intimidation, well, that is taped and documented by WM. Good luck getting that tape, it'll never happen.

Wouldn't it be material evidence in a suit of Wal-Mart? Couldn't release be forced by court action in such a suit?

The use of force on Destiny? Things happen when you are being detained or questioned. If you try to rabbit, or fight, then the continuum of force kicks in. Once the suspect is back under control you can slow down and start asking questions again.

I read that as running to her brother after a traumatic, screaming interrogation--neither trying to escape or fighting.

Taking on the state with a pistol at Wal Mart is not a good idea.

I agree, unless it's over abuse worth dying to prevent and you have a reasonable chance of actually preventing the abuse. But I didn't suggest taking on the state--a cop--I asked about using deadly force to prevent two male WM employees from taking a minor female in a private room for interrogation / strip search / body cavity search /whatever they damn well please. If it had been two male cops, I would not have asked about deadly force.

[TPaine7]

29. A few more thoughts

Secondly, if one drew a weapon to stop a "kidnapping" you would be in serious danger of taking a dirt nap.

Sometimes the bad guys win.

While the detention is unpleasant and could result in legal hassles for the girls nobody could claim a reasonable belief that they were about to be seriously injured or killed.

If two strange men wanted to take your {hypothetical "your"} teenage daughter in a back room and insisted on doing so without your presence you would not harbor a reasonable belief that she might be in danger of sexual abuse in the guise of interrogation and search--especially given the fact that any record of the event is "super top secret" store property? If I were sitting on the jury, I certainly would understand it.

Depending on your state it could very well technically be kidnapping but it would be nearly impossible to get a grand jury to see it that way.

I absolutely believe this, and thank you for the education. The legal system is A-OK with jury nullification as long as it goes the right way--in the direction of corporations or the state.

[jeepnstein]

30. Not making light of you, but...

Sometimes the bad guys win.

"I fought the law and the law won." Doesn't mean it's not messy, just a losing proposition.

I'm not seeing this detention of an accused shoplifter as anything so out of the ordinary as to raise suspicions of some secret rendition and sexual exploitation scheme. Loss prevention has the right to attempt to detain shoplifters. The only really interesting part for me is the use of force on the part of the police. In both cases it was probably appropriate. Detaining an argumentative or even physically violent shoplifter isn't that unusual. Criminals hate getting caught and some times innocent people act foolishly in a fit of emotion.

The overriding theme I got from your scenario is that the accused and her relative was more interested in asserting control of the time and conditions of the interview. It doesn't work that way. While the guardian has legitimate concerns about the legal situation the child is drawn into, the place for contesting the facts of the case and even the circumstances of the detention are in court. Even if the detention was done improperly it is not reasonable to claim that one was defending the accused from physical harm or sexual abuse at the hands of the WalMart Secret Police. Nobody would buy that argument, not in a million years.

Your question about whether using a firearm to prevent loss control from detaining and interviewing the shoplifters is simple. Doing so would catch one a robbery charge at the least. It's just got fail written all over it.

[TPaine7]

31. I appreciate the education.

The overriding theme I got from your scenario is that the accused and her relative was more interested in asserting control of the time and conditions of the interview. It doesn't work that way. While the guardian has legitimate concerns about the legal situation the child is drawn into, the place for contesting the facts of the case and even the circumstances of the detention are in court. Even if the detention was done improperly it is not reasonable to claim that one was defending the accused from physical harm or sexual abuse at the hands of the WalMart Secret Police. Nobody would buy that argument, not in a million years.

I don't particularly like that reality, but your words carry added weight given the fact that you hold yourself subject to the same rules:

Had I spouted off and brayed like a jackass I would have still been detained until they established my identity.

Declining to submit is not necessarily spouting off and braying like a jackass, but hyperbole aside I have to respect intellectual consistency and lack of double standards.

I appreciate the education.

[jeepnstein]

39. It's been fun.

I'm going to bail on this thread. It's only a matter of time till it goes straight downhill. Since we've managed to be civil I'm going to quit while I'm ahead.

[PavePusher]

32. I think you missed part of the debate.

"I'm not seeing this detention of an accused shoplifter as anything so out of the ordinary..."

What was being discussed was unidentified men taking a young female into "custody" without giving a reason. That would raise many kinds of red flags for me.

[jefflrrp]

34. Speaking of red flags.

If two men took any of my female family or friends forcibly back, without a female employee present, and proceeded to conduct a screaming interrogation without an effort to hear me out or quickly summon the police, they'd have one hell of a problem on their hands. Firstly, they'd have a broken door, and secondly, they'd have a screaming, enraged man using whatever close merchandise comes to mind to proceed to beat the ever loving shit out of them. Consequences be damned. Im not letting some piece of shit employee in some piece of fucking shit store take a female friend/relative behind closed doors. Ive seen what can happen with men alone in a room with women, and that aint fucking happening on my watch. Period.

[TPaine7]

33. More grist for the mill

Here's the case this one reminded me of; I think I recall seeing this man on TV:

Lloyd Morrison, a Teaneck, N.J., financial analyst, sued for unspecified damages in Bergen County Superior Court. He said Bloomingdale's has shown a pattern of discrimination against minorities and failed to train its security personnel properly.

Morrison said he and his son, Lloyd Jr., were shopping for suits Feb. 10, 1996, at the Bloomingdale's in Riverside Mall in Hackensack when he was accused of trying to hide a pair of children's pants.

He said guards ordered him and his son to a back room, where he was told to remove his jacket and pants, and then frisked. The guards ordered him to remove his son's pants, too, he said.

No shoplifted items were found, and the guards allowed him to leave the store only after he gave them his name and address, Morrison said.

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/09/25/1997-09-25_bloomie_s_slapped_with_bias_.html

Ok, in this one they didn't try to remove a minor from his parent, but they strip searched him and his son. They then continued detaining him though he was obviously innocent of the alleged crime until he gave them information.

As I recall the TV story infuriated me. I suppose he had no right to any form of resistance, even to forcible strip searches of his innocent child. Even to being detained after proof of not having secreted stolen goods. I recall wishing that the guards had done that to the wrong person and gotten to drink through straws and ride in wheelchairs for a few months.

What if the store guards ordered your teenage daughter--in your presence or not--to sweep her panties aside so they could check her vaginal region (like the idiot school administrator in the infamous SC case recently ordered a student to do in a "zero tolerance" drug search)? Are there absolutely no limits?

[TPaine7]

35. Yet more grist for the mill

At the Bar; Falsely accused: In a humiliating arrest, a black judge finds lessons of law and race relations.

Almost a month has now passed since Judge Claude Coleman's fateful visit to the Bloomingdale's at the Mall in Short Hills, N.J., when an innocent Christmas shopping trip turned into a nightmare of false accusations, public humiliation and eventual vindication. He is back behind the bench in Newark Municipal Court and back, at least superficially, to his old good-natured self.

But despite apologies from Bloomingdale's and the Millburn, N.J., Police Department, Judge Coleman, who served as director of Newark's fire and police departments before joining the judiciary, is still smarting -- and thinking. He is pondering just how fragile things like a reputation and the presumption of innocence can be. He is also wondering what, if anything, a black man must achieve to be beyond suspicion.

On Dec. 11, the 53-year-old judge entered Bloomingdale's and bought two pairs of women's gloves, presents for friends. He charged them to his Bloomingdale's credit card, then left for the Georgetown Leather store a few doors away. There, he suddenly found himself surrounded by walkie-talkie-toting security guards from Bloomingdale's, who accused him of using a stolen credit card. They made him put his hands in the air, then spread them on the counter, as they summoned the Millburn police.

When the officers arrived, Judge Coleman protested his innocence, asked to see his accusers, and showed identification. He was nonetheless handcuffed -- tightly and behind his back -- and was dragged through crowds of shoppers to a police car. At the station house, he was chained to a wall and was prevented from calling a lawyer or even from urinating. There, he said, the officer guarding him seemed to delight in his predicament and seemed flabbergasted to meet a black man who had actually gone through life without ever having been handcuffed.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/07/us/bar-falsely-accused-humiliating-arrest-black-judge-finds-lessons-law-race.html

Since he was a judge, I suppose, the store called a press conference to apologize. They fired two guards and suspended a third.

[Taitertots]

51. Call the police yourself

as soon as they start hassling you. Refuse to go into their office, demand to wait for the police in the open on camera. Never offer ID, cooperation, or consent to any degree of search.

[safeinOhio]

55. Teach your childern

If you didn't do anything
1. ask if I'm under arrest?
2. they will say no only asking questions. Reply, am I free to leave.
3. I will not answer any questions with out my lawyer present.

Tell em that is your story and you are sticking to it.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Excellent advise. Add to that: Do so in a calm demenor.

And: It is OK to answer basic ID questions.

However, if you have the reciept, (And since you were just at the cash register a few sweconds ago, you should have the reciept) it is a lot faster and easier just to show the reciept and be about your business.

If you were shoplifting and just got nabbed, then be calm, ID info only, politely ask for an attorney.