I asked myself an interesting question today, help wanted.

[jbombelli]

If it turns out the person wasn't shoplifting, the LP guys can go to jail for it, and they and the store can be sued into the ground. That's why they are so careful to make sure that the person was shoplifting before getting rowdy with them.

I know. Their "probable cause" typically consists of watching someone pocket/stash an item and then walk out (or at least try to) the door. From what I recall, they will keep eyes on the thief the whole time, and won't try to detain them if they lost sight of them, even for a second, for this specific reason.

 

[steve666]

It's a ridiculous fallacy generated by television and the movies that a gun is a magic wand, you just waive it and people do exactly what you want. The only thing pulling your gun in this circumstance would get you is arrested on a brandishing charge.

 

[Joe Williams]

Something else to consider is that if you pull a gun in circumstances you weren't legally entitled to do so, the bad guy pulls his gun and you get into a shooting, guess which one of you stands to lose in criminal court? A pretty good case could be made that HE was the one acting out of a "reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm." The turd would suddenly become the victim.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's a ridiculous fallacy generated by television and the movies that a gun is a magic wand, you just waive it and people do exactly what you want. The only thing pulling your gun in this circumstance would get you is arrested on a brandishing charge.

No such charge in Indiana, however:

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
As added by P.L.296-1995, SEC.2.

An "A misdemeanor" vs. a "D felony"... neither one is somewhere you want to go. Good for you, OP, for asking rather than doing (even if you had been armed.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

I'm not sure how old you are, and I don't mean anything disparaging. If that is something you would seriously considered doing. You might want to rethink a few things and read some books on carrying a firearm.

okay why do people ignore these facts. I do not carry at work so this situation is simply not possible. I never said i WOULD do this i simply wondered if there were any legal ramifications that for sure would happen.
this question has nothing to do with my character it was a simple legal inquiry....

 

[jbombelli]

Something else to consider is that if you pull a gun in circumstances you weren't legally entitled to do so, the bad guy pulls his gun and you get into a shooting, guess which one of you stands to lose in criminal court? A pretty good case could be made that HE was the one acting out of a "reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm." The turd would suddenly become the victim.

Very possible. However, it all seems to come down to "legally entitled to do so..."

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.

. . .

(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;



I would interpret this to mean that the shopkeeper/clerk can use reasonable force to detain. And it seems to me that the thief is specifically disallowed to use any force whatsoever in order to escape, regardless of whether or not the shopkeeper uses force in order to detain him.

If I'm on the jury, I'd vote to acquit the shopkeeper, or convict the thief.


I love these conversations. I do actually try learn from them.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

Pulling a guy for a "tough guy" routine or to play policeman is exactly the attitude this community doesnt want. .

not a LEO. not a tough guy. never been in a fight in my life.
stop attacking my character everyone and please focus on the question. the question was not what if something else happened. LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS WERE ALL I WAS LOOKING FOR.

for anyone who simply said no i thank you for understanding what i was looking for.

i wasnt planning on doing this in the future. i am very responsible with my firearms. but as a law abiding citizen, and possible future LEO i just posed a question regarding legality of an action.

 

[Dsgnr_81]

not a LEO. not a tough guy. never been in a fight in my life.
stop attacking my character everyone and please focus on the question. the question was not what if something else happened. LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS WERE ALL I WAS LOOKING FOR.

for anyone who simply said no i thank you for understanding what i was looking for.

i wasnt planning on doing this in the future. i am very responsible with my firearms. but as a law abiding citizen, and possible future LEO i just posed a question regarding legality of an action.

Yeah, but you're expecting people to READ...

Oh well. Dont take it personally, it's an online forum. People have more cents to throw in than sense sometimes.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

No, you cannot.

thank you

 

[E5RANGER375]

not a LEO. not a tough guy. never been in a fight in my life.
stop attacking my character everyone and please focus on the question. the question was not what if something else happened. LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS WERE ALL I WAS LOOKING FOR.

for anyone who simply said no i thank you for understanding what i was looking for.

i wasnt planning on doing this in the future. i am very responsible with my firearms. but as a law abiding citizen, and possible future LEO i just posed a question regarding legality of an action.

i wasnt attacking your character for one. i was making a point in general and my point was correct. so

sure, if you were so responsible then you wouldnt have even asked such a retarded question. now im attacking your thought process.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

sure, if you were so responsible then you wouldnt have even asked such a retarded question. now im attacking your thought process.

how does asking a question make someone less responsible???????

i am not a law expert therefore i saw it as a legitimate question thank you very much. excuse me for being curious and wanting to know the law.
dont you think its better for me to ask about the law instead of doing before i am informed?

idk to me it makes me sound very responsible.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Ask yourself this..... is the value of those goods worth it TO YOU personally even if you get aressted for indimidation, sued, for some reason accidentally fire and get arrested for something far worse?

To me it is just not worth it.


And like others have said in the past.... carrying is to protect you or someone elses life.... not for saving the company some money or any other reason.


P.S. Never trust anyones word when it comes to things that can land you in jail....

 

[E5RANGER375]

i am not a law expert therefore i saw it as a legitimate question thank you very much. excuse me for being curious and wanting to know the law.
dont you think its better for me to ask about the law instead of doing before i am informed?

idk to me it makes me sound very responsible.

yes and thats why i thanked you before, but then you started getting an attitude with people who were just trying to help you, so i felt you needed an adjustment. its free, so dont worry about it.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

yes and thats why i thanked you before, but then you started getting an attitude with people who were just trying to help you, so i felt you needed an adjustment. its free, so dont worry about it.

i wasnt getting an attitude i was pointing out that most of these posts were ignoring my question and talking about ME not actually what i asked.

 

[jbombelli]

i wasnt getting an attitude i was pointing out that most of these posts were ignoring my question and talking about ME not actually what i asked.

Just about every thread someone can post on the internet asking a legitimate question will have several posts that ignore that question, and instead ask, or make comment, about the person asking it. My advice is to just ignore those replies that aren't helpful.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Just about every thread someone can post on the internet asking a legitimate question will have several posts that ignore that question, and instead ask, or make comment, about the person asking it. My advice is to just ignore those replies that aren't helpful.

This reply was not helpfull to the original question so I will ignoore it

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

Just about every thread someone can post on the internet asking a legitimate question will have several posts that ignore that question, and instead ask, or make comment, about the person asking it. My advice is to just ignore those replies that aren't helpful.

i totally agree with you 100% the only reason i gave those replies a second look is because i dont appreciate when people ignore the real issue and start making assumptions about me instead.

 

[patton487]

okay why do people ignore these facts. I do not carry at work so this situation is simply not possible. I never said i WOULD do this i simply wondered if there were any legal ramifications that for sure would happen.
this question has nothing to do with my character it was a simple legal inquiry....

My comments were merely trying to point you to some good info on the subject. Did not attack anyone's character. No need to get your panties in a bunch...

 

[Paco Bedejo]

My highlights in BLUE.

IC 35-33-6-2
Probable cause; detention; procedure; statements by juveniles
Sec. 2. (a) An owner or agent of a store who has probable cause to believe that a theft has occurred or is occurring on or about the store and who has probable cause to believe that a specific person has committed or is committing the theft:
(1) may:
(A) detain the person and request the person to identify himself or herself;
(B) verify the identification;
(C) determine whether the person has in the person's possession unpurchased merchandise taken from the store;
(D) inform the appropriate law enforcement officers; and
(E) inform the person's parents or others interested in the person's welfare that the person has been detained; but
(2) shall not ask the person to make a statement that acknowledges that the person committed the theft or conversion or waives any of the person's legal rights if:
(A) the person is less than eighteen (18) years of age; and
(B) the person has not been afforded an opportunity to have a meaningful consultation with his or her parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem.
(b) A statement acknowledging that a child committed theft or conversion in violation of subdivision (a)(2) cannot be admitted as evidence against the child on the issue of whether the child committed a delinquent act or a crime.
(c) The detention must:
(1) be reasonable and last only for a reasonable time; and
(2) not extend beyond the arrival of a law enforcement officer or two (2) hours, whichever first occurs.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1982,

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.

. . .

(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;

The areas in blue seem to indicate that you can, as an agent of the store, employ reasonable force & detain someone to prevent the loss of property, without running afoul of the law. If city employ...I mean praiseworthy police officers...can do so, I see no moral issues with a responsible citizen & agent of the property-owner doing so as well.

That said, I wouldn't do it because my safety & freedom are worth more than two drills to me.

 

[EvilKidsMeal]

My highlights in BLUE.





The areas in blue seem to indicate that you can, as an agent of the store, employ reasonable force & detain someone to prevent the loss of property, without running afoul of the law. If city employ...I mean praiseworthy police officers...can do so, I see no moral issues with a responsible citizen & agent of the property-owner doing so as well.

That said, I wouldn't do it because my safety & freedom are worth more than two drills to me.

theyre not worth it to me either. stuff gets stolen from the store all the time. this incident only made me think because the thief was actually confronted instead of us finding an empty package on the shelf like usual.

The areas in blue seem to indicate that you can, as an agent of the store, employ reasonable force & detain someone to prevent the loss of property, without running afoul of the law. If city employ...I mean praiseworthy police officers...can do so, I see no moral issues with a responsible citizen & agent of the property-owner doing so as well.

that is exactly why i asked this question because i could see where that argument could be made leading me to believe maybe it would be legal.