8/12/2010 12:55pm, #11
What is the deal with the guy in the yellow vest who shows up late and starts screaming?
8/12/2010 2:22pm, #12
major lawsuit time. those security guards will lose their jobs for sure, and rightly so."Face punches are an essential character building part of a martial art. You don't truly love your children unless you allow them to get punched in the face." - chi-conspiricy
"When I was a little boy, I had a sailor suit, but it didn't mean I was in the Navy." - Mtripp on the subject of a 5 year old karate black belt
"Without actual qualifications to be a Zen teacher, your instructor is just another roundeye raping Asian culture for a buck." - Errant108
"Seriously, who gives a **** what you or Errant think? You're Asian males, everyone just ignores you, unless you're in a krotty movie." - new2bjj
8/12/2010 2:29pm, #13
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Tampere, Finland
From the video description, I got the impression that the guy who shot this knew ahead of time that the guy being choked out was deaf, and I think at least some non-deaf people had figured out that the guy was deaf. So, I'm scratching my head as to why nobody stepped up and said "Hey, take it easy, the guy's deaf, he didn't hear the alarm."
Apparently, it isn't enough for the alarm to go off for the mall security to apprehend a suspected shoplifter, but what about the person who set off the alarm walking off, ignoring the security guys telling them to stop? And before anyone flames me, I understand that the security people were going way overboard even if it had been a genuine shoplifter.
8/12/2010 2:48pm, #14
unfortunatly you are allowed to ignore security guards if you havent stolen anything.
Yes it shits me too.
It is all about finds commiting which basicly means as a member of the public you have to see the offence to make an arrest.
This also means that 99% of security loss prevention make arrests that are doodgy
8/12/2010 8:08pm, #15
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
I was under the impression that you can not legally detain someone against their will, that would be for the police to take care of.
From back when I was working in Retail it was policy not to follow anyone once they left the store, the video surveliance was given to the police to follow up.
8/12/2010 8:20pm, #16
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
8/12/2010 8:44pm, #17
This happened in Hollywood, CA and it involved the disabled, so that's what I call a sticky situation.
Shopkeepers (and their security) enjoy citizen's arrest/shopkeepers privilege in CA and as long as certain rules are followed they can actually be immune from criminal or civil liability.
One of those requirements involves whether force is lethal or nonlethal. Another of those requirements is that someone's civil rights not be violated during the arrest...
8/12/2010 8:59pm, #18
In CA, especially in good old Hollywood, the security guards tends to be licensed and well trained because the stores are all high end merchandise.
Those "BID Patrol" guys that show up are not even active duty police, they are off duty/retired PD working as armed security for the Hollywood Entertainment District.
8/12/2010 11:00pm, #19
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Thanks for the links, good info in there on "merchant's privilege" I am guessing those stupid alarms are considered reasonable suspicion. Too bad, the clerks often leave the tags on. I guess this will come down to whether use of force is reasonable here.
8/12/2010 11:43pm, #20
I think it will come down to whether or not the store security can actually prove he stole something. They better have been damn sure before he left the store (and be able to prove it) or else they could indeed be found liable in CA for something..false arrest, assault, or a civil lawsuit against the store.
Hmm. Deaf people are protected by the ADA, so it could (theoretically) be a federal criminal violation to tackle a deaf person simply because they don't respond to the alarm or verbal warnings...when the issue is AT WORST shoplifting from Forever 21...I'll have to follow this one. Thankfully, this video has already gone viral.
ADA Title III: Public Accommodations
Title III covers businesses and nonprofit service providers that are public accommodations, privately operated entities offering certain types of courses and examinations, privately operated transportation, and commercial facilities. Public accommodations are private entities who own, lease, lease to, or operate facilities such as restaurants, retail stores, hotels, movie theaters, private schools, convention centers, doctors' offices, homeless shelters, transportation depots, zoos, funeral homes, day care centers, and recreation facilities including sports stadiums and fitness clubs. Transportation services provided by private entities are also covered by title III.
Public accommodations must comply with basic nondiscrimination requirements that prohibit exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment. They also must comply with specific requirements related to architectural standards for new and altered buildings; reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures; effective communication with people with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities; and other access requirements. Additionally, public accommodations must remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense, given the public accommodation's resources.