Skip to comments.Police ID suspected shoplifter who died after being shot in Walmart(TX)
Posted on 04/22/2012 8:40:28 PM PDT by marktwain
The suspected shoplifter who died after being shot during a scuffle with a loss-prevention officer inside the College Station Walmart was killed by his own handgun, College Station police revealed Saturday.
The man was identified by police as 47-year-old Michael Alan Bradshaw of Robertson County.
Bradshaw was pronounced dead at College Station Medical Center at about 8:15 p.m. Friday.
Police said Bradshaw had been detained by store personnel as he attempted to leave the Walmart with a shopping cart of stolen merchandise sometime around 4 p.m. Friday.
After being escorted to the store's loss-prevention office, Bradshaw began to struggle with employees and pulled a handgun from his pants pocket.
The gun discharged during the struggle and a round struck a filing cabinet before a loss-prevention officer was able to get control of Bradshaw's gun.
Bradshaw then pulled a knife, investigators determined, and began to approach the loss-prevention officer wielding the gun.
The employee shot Bradshaw once in his mid-section, police said.
The gunfire in the Walmart sent customers running for cover toward the back of the store, where employees directed them outside.
Police could not say what items Bradshaw was attempting to steal from the store.
According to Brazos County records, Bradshaw had been released from the Brazos County Jail on April 10. His confinement had lasted for 20 days because of two writs of commitment.
Although the record did not reflect the reason for Bradshaw's incarceration, writs of commitment can be issued for such infractions as failure to pay child support.
Bradshaw also had been charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana and a DWI in the 1990s.
The investigation of what police were calling an aggravated robbery was ongoing late Saturday.
Walmart closed its doors after the incident but reopened at 6:30 a.m. on Saturday.
Business seemed to continue as usual as customers' cars filled the parking lot.
a private store owner or their representitive has no right to detain anyone....Show me case law or confess you are just plain ignorant.
Yeah, it's a good way to get sued.
I’ts the case law of I’ll sue yer ass off and win.
Many states have laws protecting merchants from false imprisonment claims. These laws typically allow merchants to detain retail patrons for a brief period of time when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed retail theft. In many instances, a shopkeeper is limited to detaining a person to request or verify ID, make a reasonable inquiry into whether the person has purchased the merchandise, and/or to hold the person in custody until a peace officer arrives.False Imprisonment - FindLaw
LOL! My first large income was from a college professor I caught in 1975 while working, and nailed her for stealing $300 worth of purses and shoes. She was indignant and slapped me in the face. I manhandled her into the back office and called the cops, not because of the shoplifting but because I have the right to go to work without being assaulted. The cop didn’t even write her a summons, he took her along. It went to Civil Court, she ended up paying me $15,000 and nar’y a word was said I violated her rights to steal whatever she wanted. Oh, she plead guilty to theft, lost her job, also.
Thank you for making point. Read on further.
The shopkeeper's privilege does not require that the person detaining another confirm or refute the detainee's claims regarding the merchandise, nor does it prevent the suspected shoplifter from being held for a reasonable time in order to deliver him to the police. Resendez, 962 S.W.2d at 540; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. S: 124.001; Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 18.16 (granting to any person privilege to detain person suspected of theft and deliver them to peace officer). Because the detention was not without authority of law, Carr has not stated a legally arguable cause of action for false imprisonment, and the realistic chance of his ultimate success on this claim was slight. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Carr's claim for false imprisonment. SOURCE: 03-07-00149-CV (10/7/09) (3rd Court of Appeals in Austin, TX)
More cites to caselaw at the link.
You said a shopkeeper has no right to detain. That would be ZERO right.
So, it's your turn to cite caselaw for your proposition, or, as you put it, "confess your ignorance."
You said a shopkeeper has no right to detain. That would be ZERO right....Ummm, go back and read the previous posts. SOUTHERNROCK said that inanity, not me.
Only if you if you do not follow the criteria for using such powers. If I am not mistaken forty-nine states explicitly permit citizen arrests. North Carolina does not statutorily permit citizen arrests but provide for it by other means.
Like Santa's little elves.
Sory about the misattribution. Your post didn't distinguish your response from what you were responding to (italics, new paragraph, remark or something else), and I mistook SouthernRock's assertions as your assertion.
Sorry. I always put..........As the means to dissect my answer from somebody else’s. I just ain’t too geekified, but I DO know Civil and Criminal law. Environmental law, too.
If that's the last mistake I make today, it'll be an outstanding and remarkable day!
Better go read the statutes, son ... at least in Florida they DO have the right and are held harmless. If you don’t like it, don’t go on their property.
FS 812.015 Retail and farm theft; transit fare evasion; mandatory fine; alternative punishment; detention and arrest; exemption from liability for false arrest; resisting arrest; penalties.Bottom line: a store CAN hold you until the cops arrive but there is a narrow window for them to do so. Also note that under that statute an antishoplifting device includes video surveillance, not just a beeping detector at the door.
(3)(b) The activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.
I have no doubt a major settlement would be forthcomming.
And a customer has a right to go onto a public accomidation property without being falsely accused, falsely imprisioned, and manhandled. That's a lawsuit. Actually, its a settlement before it even gets to that level.
Oh! I see you got a copy of the Wal*Mart policy manual. I hope you didn't have to hit on some poor girl to get it...But then, if you did I hope it worked out for you. You can't beat a successful hit on a Wal*Mart chick. And I mean that sincerely.
I understand the Staten Island Ferry has a similar policy.
Google up The Tueller Drill and you'll know why.