Apparently you are now "racist" if you prosecute black shoplifters and assaulters

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyone who had actually read this thread would have known a number of people in this thread have asked LP to explain his "logic", but he refuses to do so. An alert reader might have recognized the annoyance driven sarcasm at the refusal. Which would have might have lead a disinterested and humble reader to concentrate refusal and its meaning instead of drawing inaccurate conclusions and engaging in condescending, biased preaching.

There's no possibility of convincing you anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He hasn't refused to do so. He has attempted to do so. He just hasn't done

so to the satisfaction of those who have quickly resorted to



as you put it, which is only going to make it less likely, not more likely, for a person to keep trying to explain their view to those on another side of an issue who are unlikely or unwilling to understand it.

His argument is based on his misuse of the term "out of the blue" (which means unexpectedly). Apparently everyone is capable of understanding that but you.

Something that's out of the blue is not only unexpected but without a reasonable sequence of events leading up to it.

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone who had actually read this thread would have known a number of people in this thread have asked LP to explain his "logic", but he refuses to do so. An alert reader might have recognized the annoyance driven sarcasm at the refusal. Which would have might have lead a disinterested and humble reader to concentrate refusal and its meaning instead of drawing inaccurate conclusions and engaging in condescending, biased preaching.

There's no possibility of convincing you anyway.

Not in this instance because you are dead wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

He hasn't refused to do so. He has attempted to do so. He just hasn't done

so to the satisfaction of those who have quickly resorted to



as you put it, which is only going to make it less likely, not more likely, for a person to keep trying to explain their view to those on another side of an issue who are unlikely or unwilling to understand it.

His argument is based on his misuse of the term "out of the blue" (which means unexpectedly). Apparently everyone is capable of understanding that but you.

Something that's out of the blue is not only unexpected but without a reasonable sequence of events leading up to it.

This is not Alice in Wonderland and you are not the Cheshire Cat. It means unexpected/surprising. See
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/out%20of%20the%20blue or https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/out-of-the-blue or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_blue_(idiom) or https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/out+of+the+blue or https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/out-of-the-blue

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Something that's out of the blue is not only unexpected but without a reasonable sequence of events leading up to it.

This is not Alice in Wonderland and you are not the Cheshire Cat. It means unexpected/surprising. See
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/out%20of%20the%20blue or https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/out-of-the-blue or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_blue_(idiom) or https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/out+of+the+blue or https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/out-of-the-blue

You are now bickering over semantics, when Loren has clarified what he meant when he said it. Why do you play these games?

 

[RavenSky]

Ok, you didn't understand my post.

I said shopkeepers don't attack customers out of the blue. Your example was not out of the blue.

Yes. It was.

Unless you think assaulting one's customers is the normal thing to do. Oh wait. You DO think that. You are defending Gibson's son for assaulting people, too.

Apparently you do not understand "out of the blue".

Your case is someone who refused to leave--he had already tried words.

So it is your position that shopkeepers should be allowed to violently (and massively disproportionately) physically assault customers because the shopkeeper "already tried words"?

"Out of the blue" means that the shopkeeper in the article I posted had absolutely zero VALID reason for attacking multiple customers. He went berserk on them. It does not matter at all what he believed they may or may not have done, or what he may or may not have said first. Normal people do not expect a shopkeeper to go violently nuts and start attacking multiple customers under any circumstances. This shopkeeper's excessively violent behavior was completely unexpected - out of the blue - and inappropriate.

The bottom line is that your current derail over the meaning of "out of the blue" was brought on by your blanket erroneous claim that:

1) The students' story doesn't pass the smell test. Shopkeepers don't just assault shoplifters out of the blue.

As I have shown, at least once (twice if we include the OP), shopkeepers have - in fact - assaulted people in their store out of the blue.

And let me remind you that you ALSO said in that post:

2) The police obviously believe the shopkeeper. I'm listening to them.

The police believed the customers in the example I posted. How come you aren't listening to them this time?

 

[Malintent]

Is "racially profiling" your customers a crime?
Is following one particular type of customer around in your store a crime?
Is stealing something from a store a crime?
Is it a crime for a shop owner to pursue and subdue someone that committed a crime in their shop?

These are important "questions" that form the basis for judgment here, in my opinion.

Also,

Is it permissible to steal from a racist shop owner?

 

[laughing dog]

Something that's out of the blue is not only unexpected but without a reasonable sequence of events leading up to it.

This is not Alice in Wonderland and you are not the Cheshire Cat. It means unexpected/surprising. See
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/out%20of%20the%20blue or https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/out-of-the-blue or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_blue_(idiom) or https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/out+of+the+blue or https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/out-of-the-blue

You are now bickering over semantics, when Loren has clarified what he meant when he said it.

And a disinterested and rational person can see his meaning is ridiculous. It rules out the possibility of any assault being "out of the blue" since one can always find some "cause".

Why do you play these games?

Condescension and value-signaling are passive-aggressive methods of personal insults. If you are able, think about it.

 

[Opoponax]

Is "racially profiling" your customers a crime?

No, but it may be a civil matter. One of the very few times one's 14th Amendment equal protection rights come into play under private action is when there's a pattern of racial discrimination by a given establishment or specific type of establishments (e.g. hotel chains). This is actually justified by the Commerce Clause. The short of it is that in the aggregate, racial discrimination could have a negative impact on interstate commerce, so private citizens, natural and non-natural could be subject to state action for racial discrimination.

Whether this rises to that level, I don't know.

Is stealing something from a store a crime?

Always

Is it a crime for a shop owner to pursue and subdue someone that committed a crime in their shop?

Generally, there is what's known as a "shopkeepers privilege" to detain and hold a person who's reasonably suspected of shoplifting. However, the privilege is only for a reasonable amount of time, which, at its maximum, is usually the time it takes for the police to arrive to make an arrest. The question of pursuit also falls under "reasonable." Can you nab the suspected thief just outside the doors and/or a reasonable distance from the premises (e.g., into the parking lot)? Yep. After that, no.

There is the question of "fresh" or hot pursuit as well. For example, say an employee sees a thief tuck something into their jacket and run out the door. The owner or employee may run after the suspect for a period of time, but then must cease. IOW, if both suspect and pursuer happen to be marathon runners, chasing someone 26.2 miles into the hinterland is almost certainly not permissible.

In contrast, a private citizen may pursue someone who's stolen their personal property as far as he wants until the pursuit ends. Thereafter, it's a police matter. There are exceptions for the suspect entering onto private property and, of course, one cannot initiate a high speed vehicle chase to get their Tom Brady bobblehead back. At any rate, the use of force to re-obtain their property at the end of the pursuit can be no more than necessary under the circumstances.

Regarding use of force for shopkeepers, the standard is basically the same. Shopkeepers can use, you guessed it, a "reasonable" amount of force to re-obtain their property under the circumstances, but that's a very fine line. Shopkeepers and their employees aren't allowed to beat the living shit out of a suspected shoplifter. OTOH, for example, an undercover security guard, acting within the scope of his employment, may be able to go so far as to tackle and even handcuff a suspected shoplifter. Again though, that's walking a very fine line and its treatment will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even from judge to judge within a given a jurisdiction because these types of incidents aren't uniform so it's adjudicated on a case by case basis.

Is it permissible to steal from a racist shop owner?

Never.

 

[Malintent]

No, but it may be a civil matter. One of the very few times one's 14th Amendment equal protection rights come into play under private action is when there's a pattern of racial discrimination by a given establishment or specific type of establishments (e.g. hotel chains). This is actually justified by the Commerce Clause. The short of it is that in the aggregate, racial discrimination could have a negative impact on interstate commerce, so private citizens, natural and non-natural could be subject to state action for racial discrimination.

Whether this rises to that level, I don't know.



Always

Is it a crime for a shop owner to pursue and subdue someone that committed a crime in their shop?

Generally, there is what's known as a "shopkeepers privilege" to detain and hold a person who's reasonably suspected of shoplifting. However, the privilege is only for a reasonable amount of time, which, at its maximum, is usually the time it takes for the police to arrive to make an arrest. The question of pursuit also falls under "reasonable." Can you nab the suspected thief just outside the doors and/or a reasonable distance from the premises (e.g., into the parking lot)? Yep. After that, no.

There is the question of "fresh" or hot pursuit as well. For example, say an employee sees a thief tuck something into their jacket and run out the door. The owner or employee may run after the suspect for a period of time, but then must cease. IOW, if both suspect and pursuer happen to be marathon runners, chasing someone 26.2 miles into the hinterland is almost certainly not permissible.

In contrast, a private citizen may pursue someone who's stolen their personal property as far as he wants until the pursuit ends. Thereafter, it's a police matter. There are exceptions for the suspect entering onto private property and, of course, one cannot initiate a high speed vehicle chase to get their Tom Brady bobblehead back. At any rate, the use of force to re-obtain their property at the end of the pursuit can be no more than necessary under the circumstances.

Regarding use of force for shopkeepers, the standard is basically the same. Shopkeepers can use, you guessed it, a "reasonable" amount of force to re-obtain their property under the circumstances, but that's a very fine line. Shopkeepers and their employees aren't allowed to beat the living shit out of a suspected shoplifter. OTOH, for example, an undercover security guard, acting within the scope of his employment, may be able to go so far as to tackle and even handcuff a suspected shoplifter. Again though, that's walking a very fine line and its treatment will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even from judge to judge within a given a jurisdiction because these types of incidents aren't uniform so it's adjudicated on a case by case basis.

Is it permissible to steal from a racist shop owner?

Never.

All of my "questions" were rhetorical... your answers are correct (and where our understanding differs, may be related to subtle differences in State law).

Kid steals
Kid gets chased and caught
kid claims racism

the first two matter in a criminal court. The last does not... and as Opp says, could be a matter for civil court.

 

[Opoponax]

All of my "questions" were rhetorical... your answers are correct (and where our understanding differs, may be related to subtle differences in State law).

Kid steals
Kid gets chased and caught
kid claims racism

the first two matter in a criminal court. The last does not... and as Opp says, could be a matter for civil court.

Indeed, state law and practice can vary widely.

If the matter is as cut and dried as you put it, it won't stand up in court, nor would a criminal defense attorney try to bother with it unless there was some legitimate basis in fact for the argument. Even the claims of racism in a civil matter would be extremely difficult to prove. The hope there, assuming the claim is baseless, is to secure some kind of settlement rather than going to trial. But in an individualized case, where the entity presumably doesn't have a history of discrimination, it would be extremely difficult. But I guess it depends on the state's pleading standards.

In federal court, you can be less specific about the charges; more or less stating law and facts that lead to triable issues of facts. But in a fact pleading state you have to show each element of the act and law that applies specifically to each element in order to have a legit cause of action.

Is this a case arising under a federal question? I suppose it is because there's a claim of a violation of a civil right. But due to what's set out above, if it doesn't meet a pattern of discrimination required, then a state court claim would have to be filed. But after being turned away by fed court, could such a decision be used against the plaintiff on a motion for summary judgment? I think it'll depend on the state. Hmm. Always hated civ pro.

 

[RavenSky]

All of my "questions" were rhetorical... your answers are correct (and where our understanding differs, may be related to subtle differences in State law).

Kid steals
Kid gets chased and caught
kid claims racism

the first two matter in a criminal court. The last does not... and as Opp says, could be a matter for civil court.

Indeed, state law and practice can vary widely.

If the matter is as cut and dried as you put it, it won't stand up in court, nor would a criminal defense attorney try to bother with it unless there was some legitimate basis in fact for the argument. Even the claims of racism in a civil matter would be extremely difficult to prove. The hope there, assuming the claim is baseless, is to secure some kind of settlement rather than going to trial. But in an individualized case, where the entity presumably doesn't have a history of discrimination, it would be extremely difficult. But I guess it depends on the state's pleading standards.

In federal court, you can be less specific about the charges; more or less stating law and facts that lead to triable issues of facts. But in a fact pleading state you have to show each element of the act and law that applies specifically to each element in order to have a legit cause of action.

Is this a case arising under a federal question? I suppose it is because there's a claim of a violation of a civil right. But due to what's set out above, if it doesn't meet a pattern of discrimination required, then a state court claim would have to be filed. But after being turned away by fed court, could such a decision be used against the plaintiff on a motion for summary judgment? I think it'll depend on the state. Hmm. Always hated civ pro.

Where the matter is not as cut and dried as he may wish to imply is on three points:

1. There may be a question as to how reasonable the shopkeeper's son was in claiming the student was shoplifting in the first place. Allegedly, the student was still standing in line to pay for items and had not yet moved towards the door with any unpaid items.

2. There may be a question as to how reasonable the shopkeeper's son was in detaining the student. Conflicting reports range from the son trying to stop the student at the door by taking photos of him (why didn't he simply lock the front door?) to reports that he tackled the student from behind without a word while the student was still in the line to pay. Some of the reports also say the son proceeded to slam the student into shelves, knocking bottles of wine to the floor.

Some people here are simply rejecting eye-witness accounts in favor of their preferred version of events. Other people here are taking the position that it is fine for the shopkeeper's son to assault the student suspected of shoplifting because that's what "detain" apparently means.

3. There may be a question as to how reasonable it was for the shopkeeper's son to chase the student out of the store, across the street, and back onto university (private) property. I don't get the impression that this chase was 26.2 miles distance, but it was definitely OFF of the store's property and onto the University's property.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently you do not understand "out of the blue".

Your case is someone who refused to leave--he had already tried words.

So it is your position that shopkeepers should be allowed to violently (and massively disproportionately) physically assault customers because the shopkeeper "already tried words"?

Do you understand English?

Nowhere have I said that the case you linked is proper conduct. What I have said is that it wasn't out of the blue. The shopkeeper didn't just start attacking with nothing leading up to it. Shoplifters are confronted, not assaulted. You have a case where someone escalated from confrontation to unjustified violence.

 

[RavenSky]

Apparently you do not understand "out of the blue".

Your case is someone who refused to leave--he had already tried words.

So it is your position that shopkeepers should be allowed to violently (and massively disproportionately) physically assault customers because the shopkeeper "already tried words"?

Do you understand English?

Nowhere have I said that the case you linked is proper conduct. What I have said is that it wasn't out of the blue. The shopkeeper didn't just start attacking with nothing leading up to it. Shoplifters are confronted, not assaulted. You have a case where someone escalated from confrontation to unjustified violence.

Do YOU understand English?

There is no such thing as something "with nothing leading up to it", so if you plan to completely ignore Laughing Dog and insist on using your false definition of "out of the blue", then you have simply shown yet again that you have no intention in demonstrating intellectual honesty when you are in authoritarian mode.

 

[Malintent]

All of my "questions" were rhetorical... your answers are correct (and where our understanding differs, may be related to subtle differences in State law).

Kid steals
Kid gets chased and caught
kid claims racism

the first two matter in a criminal court. The last does not... and as Opp says, could be a matter for civil court.

Indeed, state law and practice can vary widely.

If the matter is as cut and dried as you put it, it won't stand up in court, nor would a criminal defense attorney try to bother with it unless there was some legitimate basis in fact for the argument. Even the claims of racism in a civil matter would be extremely difficult to prove. The hope there, assuming the claim is baseless, is to secure some kind of settlement rather than going to trial. But in an individualized case, where the entity presumably doesn't have a history of discrimination, it would be extremely difficult. But I guess it depends on the state's pleading standards.

In federal court, you can be less specific about the charges; more or less stating law and facts that lead to triable issues of facts. But in a fact pleading state you have to show each element of the act and law that applies specifically to each element in order to have a legit cause of action.

Is this a case arising under a federal question? I suppose it is because there's a claim of a violation of a civil right. But due to what's set out above, if it doesn't meet a pattern of discrimination required, then a state court claim would have to be filed. But after being turned away by fed court, could such a decision be used against the plaintiff on a motion for summary judgment? I think it'll depend on the state. Hmm. Always hated civ pro.

Where the matter is not as cut and dried as he may wish to imply is on three points:

Who is "he"? If you are referring to me, then upon what basis do you assign my wishes? We're talking about people that none of us, presumably, have any vested interest in... They are anecdotal points of interesting conversation. Are you projecting some "wish" of yours, perhaps? what is your agenda, then?

1. There may be a question as to how reasonable the shopkeeper's son was in claiming the student was shoplifting in the first place. Allegedly, the student was still standing in line to pay for items and had not yet moved towards the door with any unpaid items.

going by the nearly universal state laws concerning shoplifting, New York being one that I am professionally familiar with, it is correct to say that regardless of any perceived behavior of a customer in a store, no action can be considered shoplifting until they walk out the door. The law is written, "Passing the last point of sale", which is usually still within the store.. but waiting till they hit the door is best for a case.

2. There may be a question as to how reasonable the shopkeeper's son was in detaining the student. Conflicting reports range from the son trying to stop the student at the door by taking photos of him (why didn't he simply lock the front door?) to reports that he tackled the student from behind without a word while the student was still in the line to pay. Some of the reports also say the son proceeded to slam the student into shelves, knocking bottles of wine to the floor.

anything that happened inside the store before the suspect removed any merchandise from the store (passing the last register, on way out the door) would be assault (or self-defense, or whatever - just cannot be called "detaining for shoplifting", since shoplifting didn't occur yet.).
What is reasonable, in terms of physically detaining someone, probably varies more state by state than the laws specific to what shoplifting is... but what I am certain about, is that you can grab someone and drag them against their will into confinement while the police are called. If the suspect fights you, you can fight them back with force.

One time, I stopped a suspect outside of a retail clothing store. He pulled a knife on me. I told him to have a nice day. He got away with a couple pairs of jeans.

Later that week, he came back to the store with 2 friends. I never saw him, but my partner basically put him in the hospital the second he saw him. Laid him out with one punch, apparently, and gave him a concussion. I don't know if he even shoplifted (yet) that time, but the police suggested that my partner did not break the law because the shoplifter "was known to be armed and dangerous" and that we had him on video previously shoplifting.

Some people here are simply rejecting eye-witness accounts in favor of their preferred version of events. Other people here are taking the position that it is fine for the shopkeeper's son to assault the student suspected of shoplifting because that's what "detain" apparently means.

"detain" means to hold. the amount of force permissible to detain a person is proportional to the force they use to resist. i.e you cannot lay a person out just because they steal... they first would have to fight you.. if they agree to wait for the cops then you can't just beat them up. If they run, you can tackle... if they swing, so can you... if they reach for a gun, shoot them...
If the person did not steal (regardless of how they act or look), then it is assault regardless of how good-intentioned a shop employee may have been.

3. There may be a question as to how reasonable it was for the shopkeeper's son to chase the student out of the store, across the street, and back onto university (private) property. I don't get the impression that this chase was 26.2 miles distance, but it was definitely OFF of the store's property and onto the University's property.

Nope. No question, as it is irrelevant. There is no imaginary line of jurisdiction that shop employees cannot cross in pursuit of an observed shoplifter that they intend to arrest and detain for the cops. there is no legal provision that makes shoplifting permissible as long as you can get far enough away with it, lol...
Even IF there was a previously filed trespassing warning issued by a police officer to the shopkeeper regarding college property, he STILL would likely not be violating that warning by pursuing a shoplifter there.

Funny what people think "trespassing" is. you cannot proclaim a person trespassing. pretty much ever. only a police officer can do that. If you want someone off property you own, you have to tell them, then if they do not leave you can call a cop. they still aren't trespassing yet, by law, by the way... then that cop asks them to leave... if they do not, they STILL are not trespassing yet. The cop then has to issue a written warning to the person that specifies exactly where they are not desired to be, for how long, and at what times of the day... AFTER the person receives this from the cop THEN they can be arrested for violating a trespassing warning only IF they continue to refuse to leave.
It is nearly impossible to get arrested for trespassing... you have to really really want to.

 

[dismal]

Nope. No question, as it is irrelevant. There is no imaginary line of jurisdiction that shop employees cannot cross in pursuit of an observed shoplifter that they intend to arrest and detain for the cops. there is no legal provision that makes shoplifting permissible as long as you can get far enough away with it, lol...
Even IF there was a previously filed trespassing warning issued by a police officer to the shopkeeper regarding college property, he STILL would likely not be violating that warning by pursuing a shoplifter there.

The (Ohio!) law I linked earlier clearly extends the merchant's right to detain to the immediate vicinity of the store.

Based on the cop body cam videos linked earlier, the cops came upon the shopkeeper receiving his beatdown across the street from the store.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

going by the nearly universal state laws concerning shoplifting, New York being one that I am professionally familiar with, it is correct to say that regardless of any perceived behavior of a customer in a store, no action can be considered shoplifting until they walk out the door. The law is written, "Passing the last point of sale", which is usually still within the store.. but waiting till they hit the door is best for a case.

Definitely--I have walked past the checkout counters with unpaid merchandise before--because I was heading for the customer service counter.

 

[bilby]

going by the nearly universal state laws concerning shoplifting, New York being one that I am professionally familiar with, it is correct to say that regardless of any perceived behavior of a customer in a store, no action can be considered shoplifting until they walk out the door. The law is written, "Passing the last point of sale", which is usually still within the store.. but waiting till they hit the door is best for a case.

Definitely--I have walked past the checkout counters with unpaid merchandise before--because I was heading for the customer service counter.

Was your wife with you?

 

[Derec]

Gibsson's won the lawsuit!
Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College: More than $11 million

 

[Trausti]

Gibsson's won the lawsuit!
Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College: More than $11 million

And apparently the Jury can still award punitive damages. Good.