You should have NO reasonable expectation of safety when engaging in thievery or violent crime.
There was a story not long ago that armored car operators would shoot first, if they felt threatened as bad guys are not asking for the money but shooting first. Armored comapnies feel they are acting in self defense. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/us/in-houston-armored-cars-are-doing-the-opposite-of-dissuading-robbers.html?_r=0
So we could see legal precedent that shoplifters won’t fear being physically stopped.
If that happens, it will give a giant green light to shoplifters and flash mob types. If they learn that nothing will happen to them, we will see much more of this behavior.
Scum Bag Attorneys at their best. . . . .
I agree 100%.
A person in the commission of a crime should suffer whatever consequences befall them without legal recourse, including injury or death.
So, lets suppose I run a sleazy liquor store. I conspire with a few under aged would-be customers who pre-pay, at premium prices for stuff they then shoplift. I of course won’t lift a finger to stop them, fear for my life and all that.
Seems to me years ago there was a case in California where a burglar trying to break into a school fell through a skylight, fell a long distance to the floor and was paralyzed. And he did sue and won lifetime support from the school board.
As a result a bill was introduced in the California Legislature barring you from torts if you were injured while committing a criminal act.
I guess it didn’t pass?
It simply shouldn't be possible to sue for injuries incurred during the commission of a crime.
Warehouse space is cheaper than commercial retail space. No shoplifters. No annoyed shoppers working around the shelf stocking clerks. No shelf stocking clerks. Perhaps completely automated robotic warehouse.
At Lowes, the policy is, ask a customer to view their cart or bag and if they ignore you and keep walking then oh well. The Loss prevention officer then will get with the local PD and get pictures of the guy.
Problem is somebody can walk out with hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of stuff and no one will do anything about it or they will be fired.
Just wondering - would the law treat it any differently if it had been a cop who tackled the thief? Isn’t tackling someone “reasonable force” no matter how you look at it?
Keep this in mind the next time you hear about a clerk getting fired for bringing a gun and defending himself. Stuff like this is exactly why stores have these policies and these clerks get fired.
The second time I was robbed at knifepoint overnight in the pharmacy, the assistant manager followed the guy out the front door to watch which direction he ran. She got in so much trouble just for doing that. Obviously no one but us really cared if he was ever caught.
Me and her were left alone in the store a lot of nights. I was all the way in the back corner with the drugs, and she was up front by herself with the registers. She was a brave chick, God Bless her. She never knew I always had my gun on me. Nobody did, or I would have been fired.
Criminals should be held totally & solely responsible for all injuries, death, or damage to property resulting from their actions.