Jesus christ, just look at that girl, she doesn't need to steal, she's got decent clothes. What a retarded.
I love the guy filming it though

http://view.break.com/504992

__________________

The guy filming should be a commentator. Too bad this is OLD

You love the guy filming it?

It's pretty sick to see those filthy niggers manhandling a little girl like that. I'd imagine if it was some 20 year old buck nigger -- who could actually take that kind of treatment -- Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be organizing a rally near that mall within a few days.

it wasnt a nigger manhandling her you fucking retard. and seriously, who the fuck really cares what jackson or sharpton have to say. only blacks. quit making this hilarious video racist you fucking retarded faggot

Pretty sick? She shoplifted, she gets the same treatment as everybody else. And I'm quite sure for a security guard to use force like she had to of started running or something. She got what she had coming to her you dumbass racist redneck.

__________________

lol, she was hot.

"you should be a singer with that voice" lmao

I used to work LP for SEARS. Shit like that happened every day. Good times.

As for Chimro's comment: Those "20 year old buck niggers" were the most fun to deal with. They'd almost always give a good chase, and when you tackle them, it's expected.

The best part was that we only had one outside camera, that was mysteriously pointed in a different direction if an apprehension should have to take place in the parking lot.

She got da goods!

What's the law on tackling a shoplifter in the parking lot? If I remember correctly they can sue if it's a certain number of feet from the front door?

It's illegal for anyone other then the police to detain someone against their will if they are not posing a danger to anyone else's lives.

More so, for a power hungry security guard to actually "arrest" someone for stealing things that they don't even own is pathetic. If the girl was smart she would sue the fuck out of them.

And adding to the fact mentioned above, it was illegal for him to look in her purse. Not even a police officer can search a purse without consent. The only way the Security Guard could of stopped her is if she was either visually seen on camera as having stolen something and the camera was on her the entire time (From the time she entered to the time she left [no 'black spots']) or if the item she stole was still visible in her purse (I.E. the outline of a CD case, etc.).

I can keep going with the injustices here.

Hell, it's not even theft until you pass every possible location to purchase the item including the Customer Service desk and after you walk out the door. If you just put it in your bag you've done nothing wrong (this does not apply in this situation).

It really pisses me off that Security Guards are not well trained in the rights of the consumer. Sure, someone "could" be stealing a $30 item from the store. But it costs a company like Wal-Mart $.30 to make and I think the violation of our individual rights as an American is a much greater crime.

And one more thing. If you're ever caught shoplifting and a security guard tells you to stay you can simply say "No. I have other things to do." and walk away. If they take further action I would pile a shit storm of legal bullshit on them that someone is going to lose their job over it.

/rant

There is no justification against my rant so don't even bother proving me wrong.

i think they said he (the man detaining the bitch) was an undercover security.

"Girl you caught, you going to jail."

Right. And a security guard is not a police officer. A security guard is still a civilian with no legal rights to lay their hands on you.

WOOOOOOOOO!
That black guy is king, a black guy commentating on a white bitch getting arrested, oh how the tables have turned AND I LOVE IT!

Well said, you're right.

You stupid nigger loving fuck, this is exactly what I was talking about. Someday the niggers will be raping and robbing you.

Naw nigga you goin' to jail!
That niggas strong!
LOL... The commentator does absolutely fucking rock.

You filthy race traitor, people like you should be beaten to death.

She got the goods!

awesome.

i know... i knooow...

corporations should be allowed to defend their property. You can hire a security guard to watch your house while you throw a party, and if one of your guests grabs your playstation and bolts, you should be able to stop them. Same thing. The store grants you a license to be on their property, is liable for any injury you sustain on their property, and should be allowed to provent loss. I'm against receipt-checkers and shit but if there is reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, they should be able to nail you. Saying that "it just costs 30 cents to make, they should just let it go" is a moronic way to look at it. Stealing is stealing. If the girl wasn't driving a car, there would be no way to identify her and forward her info to the police and pursue legal action. Again, in the name of rights, you focus on the criminal's("suspects&quot rights and leave the property owner few options(other than just letting it go, since it's cheap right?). What kind of sissy shit is that? If a house guest steals your tv and you witness it, are you really not going to try and stop them or are you going to the wait for the slow and ineffective police to show up who may or may not give a shit because they have more important matters to attend to? A bold claim, considering half of your post is just pure speculation(that they didn't catch her on camera, that they didn't see the item sticking out of her purse, that she didn't pose any harm) and a fair amount of ethically challenged garbage(property owners have no rights in pursuing thieves beyond calling the police and going through inefficient bureaucratic bullshit)

I'm quite sure that that security guard is better informed of what he can and can't do...tard.

__________________

What?

If someone is on film concealing an item or passing all points of sale with it, you can detain them until the police arrive.

I've been to court over it, and easily won. I just brought a DvD of the guy stealing a $400 dollar GPS unit.

Also, you are allowed to use any necessary force to detain a suspected shoplifter. If they run, it is necessary to stop them. Most of the time, that means tackling someone.

As far as the range goes: For Sears, we were allowed to go to the edge of our parking lot, and 4 stores deep into the mall. I did witness a coworker go about 12 stores down, and just drag a guy back to the fourth store once.

stfu liberal faggot

It's a crime if your caught and she got caught. Dumb bitch. It's bad ideas gone wrong. you need to lrn 2 doitrite

I would guarantee if she did sue, she would get nothing at all. If it wasnt dismissed before the trial, she would not win anything. Now, if she was beat down, then she would most likely win money.

First off: My post was meant in a more broad spectrum than just this case. If she was seen on camera shoving DVD's in her vagina and promptly walking out the door the security guard still had no right to lay his hands on her.

Secondly: Your analogy about how I should be able to stop someone stealing a TV from my house means that Corporate America should be able to tackle and detain suspected (After all, a citizen cannot cite you with a crime but only claim you did broke the law to the proper official) shoplifters is incredibly wrong. What you seem to not understand is that while I invite guests on to my property it is still not open to the public. For a Department Store to be legal it must adhere to PUBLIC LAWS . That's why if you try to come to my party I can just say "No fags allowed", but if you try to go to Wal-Mart they legally cannot stop you from entering.

The fact of the matter is that Corporate America does have the more difficult job of stopping shoplifter but that just comes with the business. You would have to be fucking insane to give up your rights just to make someone else's job easier. At least in America we were founded on these basic rights (Bill of Rights, etc.). If we gave those up in order for a corporation to gain more power then we would be a Capitalist Nation (China).

By the way there are many cases where a burgler will break in to someone's house, slip in the garage, break his leg, and sue the owner for medical damages.

You live in Belgium. I'm not sure what kind of rights you have and why you need a security guard to tell you what they are but in America we're taught what our rights are. I know damn well what my rights are and I'm not too much of a fucking pussy to exercise them. I also know how Security Guards are trained. It's a 6 week course which doesn't require a High School Diploma.

Also, there have been a few cases when people have died due to excessive force given by security guards. One specific case involved about 3 security guards at a Wal-Mart sitting on a man's chest on the pavement during a hot summer day. He was "accused" of stealing but was later found possessing a receipt for his items. He died leaving behind a small child and wife. The alleged stolen item was a pack of Diapers, by the way. Someone died for $20.

Because of that incident Wal-Mart's policy specifically says that the Loss Prevention team may not under any circumstances pursue anyone outside of the store doors. Whether they still do is a store to store issue and against policy.

In short: Do your own God damn research you "tard". You're just another mindless sheep.

Are you just pulling this information out of your ass? I've worked in a Mall before and no specific store has any authority outside of their doors. If they need to pursue someone past their doors they need to contact Mall Security to continue. The same goes for Mall Security, they have no authority inside any specific store unless specifically asked to come in.

The judge may honor your case but that is nothing close to justifying force given to a "suspected shoplifter".

If that's Sear's policy then how about you scan those documents in and post them. My proof is in our constitution.

Eat a dick.

She may not win in a criminal court system but she could win in a civil suit. The only problem is that big companies like Wal-Mart pay a whole lot to have lawyers that can either tie up the court system or find a way out of it.

If anyone is going to reply then please show how it's legal for anyone to take your rights away. This is America, after all.

It pisses me off because the majority of people don't know their rights.

The majority of people in this thread should join the American Civil Liberties Union. Maybe learn a few things.

lol that guy looks half my size. he wouldnt stand a chance(after his on the ground in a pool of his own blood). It's amazing how much damage a pair of steel caps can do.

Fixed.

Lol. Funny, but it disturbs me a lot how much the filmer is enjoying it. Even if she was a goddamn noisy bitch.

Fatkitty420, I insist that you dispute Roxberry's websites, because they are (at the moment) your biggest hurdle to reaching credibility in this thread.

Those are all statutes set within individual cases and are not common law. Because a judge ruled in favor of "shopkeepers" it is supposedly safe to assume that the precedents set within these cases would encompass all other future cases.

That is not true. It is only safe to assume until someone challenges it. It is still illegal in broad practice.

Not to mention the fact that if you are apprehended by said shopkeeper under false or "assumed" pretenses then you can sue them according to the "tort of invasion of privacy", "false imprisonment tort", (in some cases) "equal protection principles", and libel/slander.

Fatkitty everything you've said has been annoying. You seem to be basically saying that the good old USA is all about looking out for the little guy and stopping big bad corporations (like they have in nasty capitalist china). People who make general 'I know my rights' claims are always annoying, and hardly ever have any basis in the real world, just vague references to the constitution. You know all the times in the news people complain that the government do things that aren't constitutional? That should be a sign to you that you can't rely on the constitution for your knowledge of shoplifting law. Common sense should tell you that shops wouldn't waste money paying security guards if theives can just walk away from them. It should also tell you that people don't, and shouldn't, have any right to take things that belong to other people or corporations, and that reasonable force should be used to stop them. Any idiot can find an example of some security people who go too far. If police had sat on someone's chest and they died, should police lose all their powers as well?

This could have been summed up by just saying that I don't like you or the things you say, but I thought I'd clarify a little.


And yes, the commentary on the video is priceless.
And yes, the racist comments are unoriginal and boring. Big thumbs down to racism and fatkitty.

Statutes set within individual cases? It doesn't sound like you know what a statute is. Statutes are laws!

These statutes that dictate what is lawfully allowed. You claimed "A security guard is still a civilian with no legal rights to lay their hands on you". This is bullshit! Nitpicking between what is a statute vs. common law does not support your case. Security guards and shopkeepers are allowed to put their hands on you in order to apprehend you until the police arrive.

Did you miss my ling on the common law shopkeepers privilege?

Statutes allow merchants, their employees, and their agents to detain suspected shoplifters.

There's no getting around this. It would be refreshing to see someone just admit that they were wrong once in a while.

You stated "It's illegal for anyone other then the police to detain someone against their will if they are not posing a danger to anyone else's lives."

Since I showed you there are statutes and a common law shopkeeper's privilege that refutes you, how about showing us what law says only police officers can detain except in cases that are life threatening?

Cite for that law? It's safe to assume because there are laws that allow merchants to detain shoplifters.

California Penal Code PEN Section 490.5 This is a law, btw.
(1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for
the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner
whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be
detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken
merchandise from the merchant's premises.

2) In making the detention a merchant, theater owner, or a person
employed by a library facility may use a reasonable amount of
nondeadly force necessary to protect himself or herself and to
prevent escape of the person detained or the loss of tangible or
intangible property.
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/490.5.html


Florida State Statute 812.015(3)(a) (Yes, statutes are laws)
A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...812/SEC015.HTM



Any other state you'd like me to provide a cite for?


Irrelevant. Police departments can be sued also. Almost anyone can be sued for almost anything.

Why did single out suing over "under false or "assumed" pretenses"? If it's against the law for anyone to touch you except police officers, it wouldn't matter if their was a legitimate reason for you to be held or not, would it?

Detention has nothing to do with invasion of privacy.

How does the Equal Protection Clause apply here?

Libel is defamation in print. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.

How much more shit can you pull out of your ass?

You know I'm not on fatkitty's side here, but people would admit their faults more often if people didn't reply to post's with false information in such a hostile manner.

Internets: If not for arguing with total strangers, then what?

This is ownage...to the EXTREME!!!!! Good job

Don't wanna bitch or anything...but she was the one who started with the hostility towards me. Then in one of my later posts I said "ofcourse now you don't want to admit it because you'd look stupid" ofcourse...I was right.

__________________

one should not shoplift if one can not do it properly.

i was caught ONCE. and i got away by macing the guard and running off.

you're so badass

dat black filming is win