From: tommy@boi.hp.com (Tom Peterson)
Subject: Re: Stores can't "detain" shoplifters
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:13:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL7]

Eric Jung (jung@base.bellcore.com) wrote:
: In article <C1HoCw.FLp@boi.hp.com>, tommy@boi.hp.com (Tom Peterson) writes:
: 
: |> It sounds like a definition of excessive physical force is required for 
: |> such circumstances.  If I were hassled by a store employee to the point
: |> where I felt I needed to press assualt charges, I would make certain
: |> a bunch of people found out just how upset of a customer I am (whether
: |> I was guilty or not).
: 
: Let me be perfectly clear -- those who charged me with assault were
: found guilty of shoplifting!  I never beat up an old lady to get a 
: receipt for her hair curlers, or anything like that!  Store detectives
: have a simple rule -- only stop shoplifters.  NEVER be wrong.  "When
: in doubt, let them out!"  But once a person has been convicted of shop-
: lifting, the store doesn't much care how upset he is.  Note also that
: force is only used in maybe 1 of 50 cases, and some stores have policies
: against using any force.
:  
: |> unclear whether he was beaten or ?, but he died of a coronary in
: |> the HOMEBASE parking lot.
: |> 
: |> It seems to me that whether this man was quilty or not, excessive
: |> force was used and contributed to his death. 
: 
: How is this a logical conclusion?  If he died of a blow to the head,
: you'd have a clear case, but people have heart attacks!  If a mugger
: had a heart attack while you defended yourself, would you feel 
: responsible?
: 
: Thanks for making an interesting discussion.  I certainly don't mean
: to make a personal attack!

Hi!
I didn't take that as a personal attack B^)
But, yes if a mugger died of say, choking on his bubble gum, while
I was defending myself from him, I would feel somewhat responsible
and remorseful. That's not really the point I was trying to make.
I believe that this man was guilty of shoplifting (and had a past history
of shoplifting). I also believe that he was getting beaten to some extent 
( I dont know if it was shoving, or wrestling or a fist fight, but 
something more than a dicussion).  

So, the point I was trying make (and doing a very bad job) was:
1. It bothers me that these employees (private citizens) felt that
they could use whatever physical force they felt was necessary to
detain (or punish?) this man. I don't think they were defending
themselves, it was 2 against 1.  I thought that "justifiable"
homocide required a self defense defense.  Anyway, noone was charged
with anything over this case.

2. The attitude which came across from the media and the police was
that the store employees and the store felt really sorry about what
had happened, they would have to live with the knowledge that they
had killed someone, and that was punishment enough.  Let the story drop.

Well I personnally don't think that the family (if he had one) should
have let the story drop.  I think the store and the employees were
responible, and I think that there was probably some kind of a pay-off
to make this story get dropped.  It kinda comes around to the belief
that if someone breaks into your house, and you want to shoot them,
you'd better make sure you kill them (dead men tell no tales) and
THAT SCARES ME.

Anyway , I still shop at HomeBase quite regularly, and I don't hold
this against them. Its a societal problem and a legal interpretation
problem and a big corporation can do no wrong problem. But its 
definitely a problem.

Thanks for listening
followup to email if we need to
Tom Peterson
tommy@boi.hp.com