jrhead75
Member
Mastrogiacomo, since you brought it up, are you a Marine? Doesn't matter one way or the other, FWIW, I agree with you.
If a Security Guard ask.
- Thread starter sensei
- Start date
- Status
Mastrogiacomo
Member
No. When I was eighteen, I tried to trick the recruiter and lie my way in. Said I could hear just fine without my hearing aids. Didn't work -- on him, the police, or the FBI/CIA. I'm probably one of the few that actually lied to try and get in....the man was impressed by my efforts though....
Carlos
Member
Mastrogiacomo
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!
Another Libra. Like me.
Now, the thing I guess that pissed me off was the apartment thing, saying that you could search my person or bags to gain entry. Sorry, that just ain't going to happen. I'd leave, even if somebody got in my way, and call the friend who lives in the apartment to come down and talk to security and then the cops would get called.
Again, no offense, as you don't sound like your typical dumba$$ mall ninja. I hate them with a passion.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!
Another Libra.
Like me. Now, the thing I guess that pissed me off was the apartment thing, saying that you could search my person or bags to gain entry. Sorry, that just ain't going to happen. I'd leave, even if somebody got in my way, and call the friend who lives in the apartment to come down and talk to security and then the cops would get called.
Again, no offense, as you don't sound like your typical dumba$$ mall ninja. I hate them with a passion.
Pilgrim
Member
The key phrase is "probable cause." That is a much higher standard than simple suspicion. That is the same standard that permits a law enforcement officer to arrest. It is the standard that will cause a magistrate to hold a person to answer for a felony.
Probable cause exists when the facts of the incident are presented to person(s) of ordinary care and intelligence and those facts cause those person(s) to believe a crime was committed and the person arrested committed the crime.
Pilgrim
Mastrogiacomo
Member
Thanks Carlos -- I was born in the Year of the Goat according to the Chinese -- and if you've read most of my posts, you know how I love Chinese films. One of the reasons I got a Beretta... Boy, if we celebrate the Year of the Goat next February -- I wonder if my luck on the job front will change for the better? I know policy, laws, are all one clouded area regarding security which is why I'm aware that working armed doesn't change anything. It won't give me anymore authority except make me look more imposing...or not, I am short. As a guard it's my job to impose the policy of the store but the customer has the choice to leave if he/she wants. I've given that option to one young lady recently but she chose to stay anyway. Not the best line of work, I agree.
Boy, if we celebrate the Year of the Goat next February -- I wonder if my luck on the job front will change for the better? I know policy, laws, are all one clouded area regarding security which is why I'm aware that working armed doesn't change anything. It won't give me anymore authority except make me look more imposing...or not, I am short. As a guard it's my job to impose the policy of the store but the customer has the choice to leave if he/she wants. I've given that option to one young lady recently but she chose to stay anyway. Not the best line of work, I agree.Carlos
Member
It is a job that need to be done. Good luck to you. I, too, am seeking different employment and the situation in Portland sucks.
Hmm, don't know what Chinese year I was born in, but I got 10 years on ya. The funnest thing I did today was renew my just expired driver's license.
Heading to the range.
Hmm, don't know what Chinese year I was born in, but I got 10 years on ya. The funnest thing I did today was renew my just expired driver's license.
Heading to the range.
Chipperman
Member
Since mastrogiacomo is in MA, I thought I would post this link from MA general laws. It's in typical poorly-written legalese, but you get the point:
Chapter 231: Section 94B False arrest; shoplifting; defrauding innkeepers; defenses
__Section 94B. In an action for false arrest or false imprisonment brought by any person by reason of having been detained for questioning on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a merchant or an innkeeper, if such person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable length of time by a person authorized to make arrests or by the merchant or innkeeper or his agent or servant authorized for such purpose and if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit a violation of section thirty A of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, or section twelve of chapter one hundred and forty, or was committing or attempting to commit larceny of goods for sale on such premises or larceny of the personal property of employees or customers or others present on such premises, it shall be a defense to such action.
Chapter 231: Section 94B False arrest; shoplifting; defrauding innkeepers; defenses
__Section 94B. In an action for false arrest or false imprisonment brought by any person by reason of having been detained for questioning on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a merchant or an innkeeper, if such person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable length of time by a person authorized to make arrests or by the merchant or innkeeper or his agent or servant authorized for such purpose and if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit a violation of section thirty A of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, or section twelve of chapter one hundred and forty, or was committing or attempting to commit larceny of goods for sale on such premises or larceny of the personal property of employees or customers or others present on such premises, it shall be a defense to such action.
Chipperman
Member
See also this link. The important part is the last paraqgraph:
GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART IV.
CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I.
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 266. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Chapter 266: Section 30A Shoplifting; penalty; arrest without warrant
__Section 30A. Any person who intentionally takes possession of, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use of benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally conceals upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of proceeds, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally alters, transfers or removes any label, price tag or marking indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment and to attempt to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some part of the retail value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally transfers any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment from the container in or on which the same shall be displayed to any other container with intent to deprive the merchant of all or some part of the retail value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally records a value for the merchandise which is less than the actual retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally removes a shopping cart from the premises of a store or other retail mercantile establishment, without the consent of the merchant given at the time of such removal, with the intention of permanently depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such cart; and
__where the retail value of the goods obtained is less than one hundred dollars, shall be punished for a first offense by a fine not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, for a second offense by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars and for a third or subsequent offense by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment in a jail for not more than two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Where the retail value of the goods obtained equals or exceeds one hundred dollars, any violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
__If the retail value of the goods obtained is less than one hundred dollars, this section shall apply to the exclusion of section thirty.
__Law enforcement officers may arrest without warrant any person he has probable cause for believing has committed the offense of shoplifting as defined in this section. The statement of a merchant or his employee or agent that a person has violated a provision of this section shall constitute probable cause for arrest by any law enforcement officer authorized to make an arrest in such jurisdiction.
GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART IV.
CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I.
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 266. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Chapter 266: Section 30A Shoplifting; penalty; arrest without warrant
__Section 30A. Any person who intentionally takes possession of, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use of benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally conceals upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of proceeds, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally alters, transfers or removes any label, price tag or marking indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment and to attempt to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some part of the retail value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally transfers any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment from the container in or on which the same shall be displayed to any other container with intent to deprive the merchant of all or some part of the retail value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally records a value for the merchandise which is less than the actual retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value thereof; or
__any person who intentionally removes a shopping cart from the premises of a store or other retail mercantile establishment, without the consent of the merchant given at the time of such removal, with the intention of permanently depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such cart; and
__where the retail value of the goods obtained is less than one hundred dollars, shall be punished for a first offense by a fine not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, for a second offense by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars and for a third or subsequent offense by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment in a jail for not more than two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Where the retail value of the goods obtained equals or exceeds one hundred dollars, any violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
__If the retail value of the goods obtained is less than one hundred dollars, this section shall apply to the exclusion of section thirty.
__Law enforcement officers may arrest without warrant any person he has probable cause for believing has committed the offense of shoplifting as defined in this section. The statement of a merchant or his employee or agent that a person has violated a provision of this section shall constitute probable cause for arrest by any law enforcement officer authorized to make an arrest in such jurisdiction.
I have no problem with security in stores or housing complexes, they do actually secure the place, and I would comply with them... but some security guards at the local mall (in the halls) are/ were real ninja-y and ask to search bags of people leaving (sometimes, depended on how the people dressed-profiling) even though there was no Prob. Cause. I have problems with that.
Jeez... easy there serpico... Thank God you're not a cop.
In NYC, you, thankfully could not pull half of the stuff you are talking about.
I've had scores of rent-a-cops pull crap like that with me based on my appearance.
They've asked "can you open your backpack?" and I always reply "No."
I have'nt taken anything, in most cases, I just purchased something!
Unless a crime is seen or caught on video, no bag opening for you!
You can not detain anyone, unless a crime has been committed.
If you so much as lay a hand on someone, bingo! you and your employer are going to be rightfully sued. As a result you will lose your job and be blacklisted from the industry.
One place I worked had a guard that watched too many episodes of COPS, he ended up breaking someone's arm while "searching" them. It turned out the "suspect" did not steal anything. In the end, Richard Branson's MEGA-company had to pay out a hefty amount of money to the injured.
Side note: The head of that store's security, was sent to jail for robbing the store blind after hours. Nice, Huh? Well, enough of that.
Because too many play-cops have pulled what you are talking about in a super-litigious city, the laws we're changed. Thankfully.
As far as you being an "Authority"... Uh...sorry to break it to you... you are not. I don' t mean it as an insult. It's just that, it's the truth. I have family in both by the way.
A LEO, an MP, a federal officer/agent... That's just some of the legitmate authority here on this earth.
But no matter what, ultimatlely, GOD is the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.
Can't get bigger than that.
Mastrogiacomo
Member
You need to re-read my posts, I don't consider myself a tough guy or above the law. I'm painfully aware of my lowly staus. God huh? More people have been killed on his behalf than for any other reason. So much for authority. Besides, what has he done for me lately? Appreciate the insight all have offered but stuff I was already made aware of by my employers. Whenever I'm on a site these days, can't help wonder, what the Hell am I doing here anyway if I can't do anything?.....
Tamara
Senior Member
Mastrogiacomo,
Remember, the consciences of the guilty are your strongest weapon. Cultivate a stare somewhere between that of a nun teaching in a Catholic school and a Jewish mother and you will be well on your way to success in this temporary gig.
Remember, the consciences of the guilty are your strongest weapon. Cultivate a stare somewhere between that of a nun teaching in a Catholic school and a Jewish mother and you will be well on your way to success in this temporary gig.
chaim
Member
OK this thread has gotten long so I have not read the entire thing, I apologize if I repeat what others have said. However, some of the attitudes I've read so far could get you arrested (at least here in MD).
Once upon a time I was a manager at a major Washington area department store (in Montgomery County MD). Our store security guards had legal authority to arrest and detain you on store property (inside and outside). The mall guards had the same authority on mall grounds. Like police if they don't have probable cause they can ask to see your bags and you can refuse. Like police if they have probable cause they can force you to comply (including detaining you, cuffing you, checking your bags anyway, and waiting for the police to come and arrest you officially depending upon whether you have stolen something, attacked the guard, threatened or verbally abused them, or even said something that could be taken as threatening him/her). Also, they do not have to actually see you take something, if it looks on the security camera like you might have taken something that is probable cause to search you. My advice if they ask, say yes or no your choice, but if they say you must then you better comply (or you could face action, up to and including arrest) and then consult your lawyer if you feel they went beyond their legal authority.
Of course, what rights they have to detain and/or search you depends upon state law and the amount of authority within state law that their employer wishes to take advantage of (many employers may not allow them to do all that the law allows out of fear of lawsuits due to overzealous guards).
Once upon a time I was a manager at a major Washington area department store (in Montgomery County MD). Our store security guards had legal authority to arrest and detain you on store property (inside and outside). The mall guards had the same authority on mall grounds. Like police if they don't have probable cause they can ask to see your bags and you can refuse. Like police if they have probable cause they can force you to comply (including detaining you, cuffing you, checking your bags anyway, and waiting for the police to come and arrest you officially depending upon whether you have stolen something, attacked the guard, threatened or verbally abused them, or even said something that could be taken as threatening him/her). Also, they do not have to actually see you take something, if it looks on the security camera like you might have taken something that is probable cause to search you. My advice if they ask, say yes or no your choice, but if they say you must then you better comply (or you could face action, up to and including arrest) and then consult your lawyer if you feel they went beyond their legal authority.
Of course, what rights they have to detain and/or search you depends upon state law and the amount of authority within state law that their employer wishes to take advantage of (many employers may not allow them to do all that the law allows out of fear of lawsuits due to overzealous guards).
jrhead75
Member
I say again...it's private property...If they want the rules to read that everyone entering will be put face down and searched, then so be it...submit or leave...entirely YOUR choice!
You're on my property...you obey my rules, or getting searched will be the very least of your problems!
Mastrogiacomo...sounds like you have a crappy job! You have my sympathy, AND my respect.
You're on my property...you obey my rules, or getting searched will be the very least of your problems!
Mastrogiacomo...sounds like you have a crappy job! You have my sympathy, AND my respect.
RocketMan
Member
Nice reply, Tamara, right on the money.
Many years ago, in a place not so far away, I worked retail sales for a major electronics chain store. While working for them I had the opportunity, if you can call it that, to catch a few shoplifters in the act.
In each instance I used the old "command presence" that I had learned in the service. Apparently I was very convincing, no screaming and yelling and I didn't have to lay hands on anybody, and they stuck around for the police.
I wonder if I could do that today? I wonder if I'd be dumb enough, given the proliferation of weapons carried by bad guys these days?
Many years ago, in a place not so far away, I worked retail sales for a major electronics chain store. While working for them I had the opportunity, if you can call it that, to catch a few shoplifters in the act.
In each instance I used the old "command presence" that I had learned in the service. Apparently I was very convincing, no screaming and yelling and I didn't have to lay hands on anybody, and they stuck around for the police.
I wonder if I could do that today? I wonder if I'd be dumb enough, given the proliferation of weapons carried by bad guys these days?
Wrong. Hope that store enjoys the lawsuit because of what a few guards seem to "think" happened. So if half the camera is pointing at you, you pick up an item out of sight, put it back, and then put your hand in your pocket in sight, according to your analogy that would be enough to search me. I think not. Everytime I drive a car, or load up a weapon, it "looks" like I could do something with them, but that is not probable cause to pull me over, or arrest me.
gunsmith
member
I'm not searching anyones bag!!! (I am an armed guard)
I don't know how they do things in Beantown (other then lose world series )
Here in the wild west ,security- armed or not (like I said I'm armed)
can detain IF we see a FELONY.
If it's reported to us by an employee we can ask to look,if they give us the one finger salute,it gets filed under free speech.
We can stand in the way till the PD arrive though.
We can only search for weapons if we detain after a felony that we witnessed,we are not allowed to conduct a search of bags/person.
A friend of mine got a 5000$ settlement after being assaulted
by an unarmed s/o.
he was told to move his bike that he had locked to a light pole in front
of an office building.
s/o followed him yelling at him and said (as my pal went into a building)
move the bike now or I break the lock.
My friend laughed and told him stealing is illegal and the guard punched him.
my friend fell down and stayed there till the cops showed up,pressed charges filed a lawsuit won the case and of course s/o lost job.
I am more for friendly banter,if involved in anything I prefer to let the cops deal with it ...most security companies won't hire a lawyer for you..
I don't know how they do things in Beantown (other then lose world series
)Here in the wild west ,security- armed or not (like I said I'm armed)
can detain IF we see a FELONY.
If it's reported to us by an employee we can ask to look,if they give us the one finger salute,it gets filed under free speech.
We can stand in the way till the PD arrive though.
We can only search for weapons if we detain after a felony that we witnessed,we are not allowed to conduct a search of bags/person.
A friend of mine got a 5000$ settlement after being assaulted
by an unarmed s/o.
he was told to move his bike that he had locked to a light pole in front
of an office building.
s/o followed him yelling at him and said (as my pal went into a building)
move the bike now or I break the lock.
My friend laughed and told him stealing is illegal and the guard punched him.
my friend fell down and stayed there till the cops showed up,pressed charges filed a lawsuit won the case and of course s/o lost job.
I am more for friendly banter,if involved in anything I prefer to let the cops deal with it ...most security companies won't hire a lawyer for you..
duckfoot
member
Ever walk out of a Wal-mart and the little dinger goes off even after you paid for your items. Do you stop or keep walking?
"Guilty till proved innocent" is Wally world's motto.
"Guilty till proved innocent" is Wally world's motto.
TallPine
Member
Well, I have thought about this a while, and now I am really upset.
At any time on THR there are threads going on about how you cannot (in most states) use force to protect property. "Someone stealing your car or your TV? Let it go and call 911 .... that's what you have insurance for ..."
Since when does the property of a business become more valuable than the property of a homeowner? Are businesses some sort of "super-citizens" with more rights than the rest of us?
So ... a business can hire somebody for 5 bucks an hour, give them a uniform, and now they get to play cop? Well, how about I hire myself as my own home security guard ...? It's getting close to Xmas, so I'm sure I can find some kind of plastic badge in the toy dept - I'll even pay for it
Now I am a security guard, and can defend my own property.
So why don't stores do like the rest of us are supposed to do ... just buy insurance and call 911 ????
I'm getting tired of reading about "hero" security guards who chase down a shoplifter, and "idiot" homeowners who chase down a burglar.
This isn't intended as a insult to those who try to do a difficult job with no legal standing. But security guards are just a facade and you might as well get used to it - just be a good witness and call 911 like the rest of us.
Incidently, if you are going to use any level of force (including verbal force) to confront a thief, you better be prepared at all times to use deadly force if the situation escalates, because it just may do that.
At any time on THR there are threads going on about how you cannot (in most states) use force to protect property. "Someone stealing your car or your TV? Let it go and call 911 .... that's what you have insurance for ..."
Since when does the property of a business become more valuable than the property of a homeowner? Are businesses some sort of "super-citizens" with more rights than the rest of us?
So ... a business can hire somebody for 5 bucks an hour, give them a uniform, and now they get to play cop? Well, how about I hire myself as my own home security guard ...? It's getting close to Xmas, so I'm sure I can find some kind of plastic badge in the toy dept - I'll even pay for it
Now I am a security guard, and can defend my own property.So why don't stores do like the rest of us are supposed to do ... just buy insurance and call 911 ????
I'm getting tired of reading about "hero" security guards who chase down a shoplifter, and "idiot" homeowners who chase down a burglar.
This isn't intended as a insult to those who try to do a difficult job with no legal standing. But security guards are just a facade and you might as well get used to it - just be a good witness and call 911 like the rest of us.
Incidently, if you are going to use any level of force (including verbal force) to confront a thief, you better be prepared at all times to use deadly force if the situation escalates, because it just may do that.
whitebear
Member
Let's take a look at this from an economic standpoint.
Giant Electronics World (GEW) has a serious "inventory shrinkage" problem. So, they electronically tag their merchandise, and use uniformed, but unarmed security officers to watch the doors in an attempt to cut down on the amount of product walking away by itself.
They do this because hiring the guard reduces some amount of shoplifting, thus reducing the cost of lost goods which must be passed on to the consumer to keep the company in business.
Oh, you thought the company just ate the cost of all the stuff that all the clever folks boosted, huh? Wrong, bubby! That cost gets passed on to all of us. Most of these uniformed folks are just trying to keep the wolf away from the door. They would probably appreciate some common courtesy.
There may be some seriously over-revved mall ninjas out there, but you know, if I had to deal, day in and day out, with some of the attitudes shown by some of the posters on this thread, I'd develop an attitude, too.
Face it, folks - for good or ill, any time you see a security guard in a place of business, someone in charge thought it was necessary to either reduce costs that would have to be passed on to the consumer, or actually had the security of the customer at heart. No one hires a security guard for the sheer pleasure of the hassle they create for the public.
One more quick comment aimed at a specific, unnamed poster on this thread - if you dress like a thief and act like a thief, expect to be treated like a thief, profiling be damned. And an attitude the size of Australia won't help your case any. Grow up.
Giant Electronics World (GEW) has a serious "inventory shrinkage" problem. So, they electronically tag their merchandise, and use uniformed, but unarmed security officers to watch the doors in an attempt to cut down on the amount of product walking away by itself.
They do this because hiring the guard reduces some amount of shoplifting, thus reducing the cost of lost goods which must be passed on to the consumer to keep the company in business.
Oh, you thought the company just ate the cost of all the stuff that all the clever folks boosted, huh? Wrong, bubby! That cost gets passed on to all of us. Most of these uniformed folks are just trying to keep the wolf away from the door. They would probably appreciate some common courtesy.
There may be some seriously over-revved mall ninjas out there, but you know, if I had to deal, day in and day out, with some of the attitudes shown by some of the posters on this thread, I'd develop an attitude, too.
Face it, folks - for good or ill, any time you see a security guard in a place of business, someone in charge thought it was necessary to either reduce costs that would have to be passed on to the consumer, or actually had the security of the customer at heart. No one hires a security guard for the sheer pleasure of the hassle they create for the public.
One more quick comment aimed at a specific, unnamed poster on this thread - if you dress like a thief and act like a thief, expect to be treated like a thief, profiling be damned. And an attitude the size of Australia won't help your case any. Grow up.
It appears to me that Mastrogiacomo’s position is that as a security guard he must follow the dictates of the company he works for, and of that company’s client. This may include hand-searching parcels that are carried to, or out of, the premises. If a person objects to this he may let the matter pass, or call for backup (which in this case seems to mean the police). On his part this is a judgment call. He will not otherwise force the issue, but may (or may not) try to detain the individual until the backup arrives. Again this is a judgment call on his part. If the person then assaults him he will respond with whatever level of force is necessary to defend himself.
Unless the police have been called (or maybe even if they have) the person always has an option to leave. However everyone should keep in mind that using force to resolve the issue cuts two ways. It is entirely possible that if things get out of hand someone could easily end up being convicted of a felony that would end their gun-owning rights forever. Given that possibility I would either leave (or more likely not enter the building in the first place), or peaceably wait for the police so that I could state my case. If the security people have made a mistake you can seek a remedy in civil court - but that also works two ways.
Unless the police have been called (or maybe even if they have) the person always has an option to leave. However everyone should keep in mind that using force to resolve the issue cuts two ways. It is entirely possible that if things get out of hand someone could easily end up being convicted of a felony that would end their gun-owning rights forever. Given that possibility I would either leave (or more likely not enter the building in the first place), or peaceably wait for the police so that I could state my case. If the security people have made a mistake you can seek a remedy in civil court - but that also works two ways.
Smoke
Member
If you have a Masters in Education, why are you working security?
Just curious?
Brian Dale
Member
Morally and ethically, a security guard has all of the rights and authority of the owner of the property. He or she stands in the owner's place when dealing with others on the property. Many states have citizen's arrest; my state does not, as it happens. States have given security personnel and certain (sometimes all) other employees the authority to "detain" people for various reasons. They can do what the law permits, and no more.
Duckfoot, when I've paid for my merchandise at Wal-Mart and the dinger goes off, I keep going. Once I've paid for something, it's my property, and they had better respect my property rights; I respect theirs, too. They don't pay me to help them calibrate their equipment. A while back, a local Wal-Mart tried, very briefly, to inspect all purchases as customers left the premises. This is done at Sam's Club (same corporate ownership, IIRC), and has been for years. The difference is that Sam's makes it plain that they do this when people come in and ask to "join," and people sign an agreement before shopping there. The Wal-Mart experiment lasted a very short time; I can imagine some of the responses of customers to their new policy.
And Mastrogiacomo, it's irrelevant how smart you are, how moral, how ethical, and how well reasoned your thesis that you should have the respect accorded to LEOs.
-break-
{Edited to insert this: I was wrong here. Nowhere do I see Mastrogiacomo arguing for "the same" anything that sworn LEOs have. I apologize for my diatribe. Mastrogiacomo's integrity is above reproach; I'll work to follow her example.}
-back to original paragraph-
You have the respect of this group for the way you present yourself, but this isn't the job. Unless and until you are a sworn LEO, then you aren't one. You are obviously the sort who should be training security staff; there are some working who don't appear to have your ability to discern what's appropriate in the performance of the job.
That failing isn't limited to security personnel. When I managed a small retail store, my assistant manager once followed a couple of shoplifters he had seen stealing: they all trooped out the door and down the strip mall. He took one by the arm as they were entering Wal-Mart, after passing eight or ten other stores; quite some distance, in that context. He kept them there for the police with some fast talking. In a rough town. When I heard about it, I was appalled. This was NOT within his responsibilities, to say the least. I told him that (1) I was glad he was OK, and (2) although I liked him a lot, and he was very good at his job (he was in training to manage a store himself), I'd have to fire him on the spot if he ever did anything like that again. He never did. He moved to a store manager job a few months later.
You ask,
Duckfoot, when I've paid for my merchandise at Wal-Mart and the dinger goes off, I keep going. Once I've paid for something, it's my property, and they had better respect my property rights; I respect theirs, too. They don't pay me to help them calibrate their equipment. A while back, a local Wal-Mart tried, very briefly, to inspect all purchases as customers left the premises. This is done at Sam's Club (same corporate ownership, IIRC), and has been for years. The difference is that Sam's makes it plain that they do this when people come in and ask to "join," and people sign an agreement before shopping there. The Wal-Mart experiment lasted a very short time; I can imagine some of the responses of customers to their new policy.
And Mastrogiacomo, it's irrelevant how smart you are, how moral, how ethical, and how well reasoned your thesis that you should have the respect accorded to LEOs.
-break-
{Edited to insert this: I was wrong here. Nowhere do I see Mastrogiacomo arguing for "the same" anything that sworn LEOs have. I apologize for my diatribe. Mastrogiacomo's integrity is above reproach; I'll work to follow her example.}
-back to original paragraph-
You have the respect of this group for the way you present yourself, but this isn't the job. Unless and until you are a sworn LEO, then you aren't one. You are obviously the sort who should be training security staff; there are some working who don't appear to have your ability to discern what's appropriate in the performance of the job.
That failing isn't limited to security personnel. When I managed a small retail store, my assistant manager once followed a couple of shoplifters he had seen stealing: they all trooped out the door and down the strip mall. He took one by the arm as they were entering Wal-Mart, after passing eight or ten other stores; quite some distance, in that context. He kept them there for the police with some fast talking. In a rough town. When I heard about it, I was appalled. This was NOT within his responsibilities, to say the least. I told him that (1) I was glad he was OK, and (2) although I liked him a lot, and he was very good at his job (he was in training to manage a store himself), I'd have to fire him on the spot if he ever did anything like that again. He never did. He moved to a store manager job a few months later.
You ask,
You've mentioned carpal tunnel, but I'll still say this: there are publishers (and other outfits that hire writers) with offices in Boston. With the way you think, take a serious look at becoming a technical writer, editor, start as a proofreader, whatever shows up. It's a good living, and you've shown the ability.
Last edited:
Pilgrim
Member
In reading these posts I am reminded of Hector C. Hector was one of the little jerks in the city I worked in. He watched enough television and talked to enough jailhouse lawyers to be an authority on the law. Whenever I had cause to detain Hector, he invariably would ask, "You gotta warrant?" Needless to say, I didn't ever have a warrant to detain Hector. I had other things like reasonable suspicion and on a few occasions probable cause.
Just as a refresher, here are the various degrees of suspicion that would cause a shopper to be watched by a security officer or detained, or even arrested.
Mere Suspicion - Sometimes called a "hunch" or "gut feeling" that someone is up to no good. These hunches or gut feelings are often developed by people who have a lot of experience in the security business and in law enforcement. It is not enough to detain someone, but it is certainly enough to cause the officer to continue to observe the person or even strike up a conversation with the suspicious person.
Reasonable Suspicion - A police officer's grounds to stop and detain someone when he has suspicion to believe a criminal act has occurred or is about to occur and the person detained is involved in committing that criminal act. The purpose of the detention is to further investigate and determine if probable cause exists to believe a crime has in fact been committed or is being attempted and the person detained can be arrested.
Reasonable suspicion is a standard applied to detentions by police officers. It was first defined in Terry v. Ohio, a U.S. Supreme Court case. It is that set of facts and circumstances that when presented to other police officers of similar training and experience to suspect a crime has been commited or is about to be committed and the person detained is somehow involved in committing the crime.
Probable Cause - Exists when a set of facts and circumstances is presented to a person of ordinary intelligence and care and causes that person to believe a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed that crime. While the probable cause standard is applied by police officers and judges to determine if a person should be arrested and further held to answer in a criminal trial, ultimately it is a jury who will determine by examining and weighing the evidence if a crime was committed and the person held as a defendant committed the crime.
Probable cause appears to be the standard in most states that allows a merchant or his agent to stop and detain a shopper they believe has stolen merchandise from the store. It is a higher standard than mere suspicion and higher than the peace officer's reasonable suspicion. I highly doubt that a merchant who has it together will detain a shopper because he thought he saw the shopper put something in his pocket. He or his staff will have observed several acts which will give them probable cause to detain.
Just keep this in mind. If a shopper is stopped by a merchant or his security officer and asked to allow his packages to be examined, and that merchant or officer believes he has probable cause to believe to detain that shopper, most states it seems will allow that merchant or officer to use reasonable force to detain that shopper to investigate the matter.
If the shopper believes he doesn't have to cooperate and starts a fight either directly or by attempting to leave and causing the merchant to restrain him. The judge of whether there was sufficient probable cause to detain will be a jury of the shopper's "peers." I am sure the merchant will have saved all of his store's surveillance tapes and be prepared to present them in court in his defense.
One other thing to consider. Responding like a jerk to a security officer's simple and polite request to examine your packages will not help you in court should you decide to sue.
Pilgrim
Just as a refresher, here are the various degrees of suspicion that would cause a shopper to be watched by a security officer or detained, or even arrested.
Mere Suspicion - Sometimes called a "hunch" or "gut feeling" that someone is up to no good. These hunches or gut feelings are often developed by people who have a lot of experience in the security business and in law enforcement. It is not enough to detain someone, but it is certainly enough to cause the officer to continue to observe the person or even strike up a conversation with the suspicious person.
Reasonable Suspicion - A police officer's grounds to stop and detain someone when he has suspicion to believe a criminal act has occurred or is about to occur and the person detained is involved in committing that criminal act. The purpose of the detention is to further investigate and determine if probable cause exists to believe a crime has in fact been committed or is being attempted and the person detained can be arrested.
Reasonable suspicion is a standard applied to detentions by police officers. It was first defined in Terry v. Ohio, a U.S. Supreme Court case. It is that set of facts and circumstances that when presented to other police officers of similar training and experience to suspect a crime has been commited or is about to be committed and the person detained is somehow involved in committing the crime.
Probable Cause - Exists when a set of facts and circumstances is presented to a person of ordinary intelligence and care and causes that person to believe a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed that crime. While the probable cause standard is applied by police officers and judges to determine if a person should be arrested and further held to answer in a criminal trial, ultimately it is a jury who will determine by examining and weighing the evidence if a crime was committed and the person held as a defendant committed the crime.
Probable cause appears to be the standard in most states that allows a merchant or his agent to stop and detain a shopper they believe has stolen merchandise from the store. It is a higher standard than mere suspicion and higher than the peace officer's reasonable suspicion. I highly doubt that a merchant who has it together will detain a shopper because he thought he saw the shopper put something in his pocket. He or his staff will have observed several acts which will give them probable cause to detain.
Just keep this in mind. If a shopper is stopped by a merchant or his security officer and asked to allow his packages to be examined, and that merchant or officer believes he has probable cause to believe to detain that shopper, most states it seems will allow that merchant or officer to use reasonable force to detain that shopper to investigate the matter.
If the shopper believes he doesn't have to cooperate and starts a fight either directly or by attempting to leave and causing the merchant to restrain him. The judge of whether there was sufficient probable cause to detain will be a jury of the shopper's "peers." I am sure the merchant will have saved all of his store's surveillance tapes and be prepared to present them in court in his defense.
One other thing to consider. Responding like a jerk to a security officer's simple and polite request to examine your packages will not help you in court should you decide to sue.
Pilgrim
- Status