Is this really involuntary manslaughter? I mean, come on

That’s a good point about the difference between the store proper, and a locking vestibule. I’ve seen lots of videos of thieves getting caught by remotely locking doors, but I think they’ve mostly been the vestibule sort of setup. Presumably, any customers still in the store part of the business could be evacuated through an employee entrance, which would circumvent the fire safety/kidnapping issue as well.

And do you think the rest of the fire safety code is just that one sentence c&p over and over, or do you figure the full text of the law might have a bunch of exceptions and carve outs to the general principle?

There’s an obvious reason why you would have remote lock/unlock in a store where the employees are behind a protective barrier: So they don’t have to expose themselves to lock and unlock the store. Come in in the morning, get everything ready, then get into your cage and unlock the door. When you have to come out of your cage for any reason, you wait until there are no customers then lock the door, then come out of your cage.

Locking up at night can be especially dangerous if someone wants to rob you. They can just wait outside out of sight until you step,out of the cage and burst through the door before you can lock it. So electric locks help.

Also, in a situation where someone is being threatening you can lock the door to keep other people out so they don’t become victims, without leaving your cage.

All in all, a remote lock in a bad area sounds reasonable. This guy just used it inappropriately.

Well, the cite above shows they are trying to make it illegal, so if it was already illegal, they wouldnt need a new law, would they? True, maybe the idea is covered loosely under other laws, but that would be hard to fight in court.

Well I just did-

That section goes on to say " When installed for security purposes, locks and latches can intentionally prohibit the use of an egress door and thus interfere with or prevent the egress of occupants at the time of a fire. While the security of property is important, the life safety of occupants is essential. Where security and life safety objectives conflict, alternative measures, such as those permitted by each of the exceptions in Section 1010.1.9.3, may be applicable."

I cant get to [Section 1010.1.9.3, but it seems like if there was some method where the security door is automatically unlocked in case of a fire, it would be okay.

Except those permitted under…

But specific to this case, is it legal to lock the three innocent people inside?

Just a guess, but the store owner may have trained the operator what to do in case somebody is trying to rob the place. 1. Lock the doors, 2. Press the 911 button, 3. Wait for the police. The owner may have told the clerk it was more important to apprehend the robber than make a value judgment on the spot.

Jewelry stores. Real jewelry stores, on Jewel’s Row or in the Diamond District, not mall ones frequently have a single door that you have to be buzzed in/out. I was just in one recently, multiple buzzers behind the counter depending upon where an employee is standing but I can’t get in/out on my own.

I’ve also seen bank branches with man-trap doors; presumably a second customer could be in there while the thief is running out.

I’ve seen tons of videos where this situation worked out well instead of tragically. Obviously, there is usually no one else in the store when the button gets pressed. Bad-guy gets caught and police arrive to arrest him…usually while his getaway vehicle abandons him.

I’m trying to remember if I’ve seen a situation like this where other customers were in the store. I’m not sure.

I will wait for all evidence to come out, if they tell us, but I really don’t blame the clerk at this point.

Section 1010.9.1.3, including explanatory notes, for your reading pleasure:

1010.1.9.3 Locks and latches.

Locks and latches shall be permitted to prevent operation of doors where any of the following exist:

  1. 1.Places of detention or restraint.

  2. 2.In buildings in occupancy Group A having an occupant load of 300 or less, Groups B, F, M and S, and in places of religious worship, the main door or doors are permitted to be equipped with key-operated locking devices from the egress side provided:

  3. 2.1.The locking device is readily distinguishable as locked.

  4. 2.2.A readily visible durable sign is posted on the egress side on or adjacent to the door stating: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN THIS SPACE IS OCCUPIED. The sign shall be in letters 1 inch (25 mm) high on a contrasting background.

  5. 2.3.The use of the key-operated locking device is revokable by the building official for due cause.

  6. 3.Where egress doors are used in pairs, approved automatic flush bolts shall be permitted to be used, provided that the door leaf having the automatic flush bolts does not have a doorknob or surface-mounted hardware.

  7. 4.Doors from individual dwelling or sleeping units of Group R occupancies having an occupant load of 10 or less are permitted to be equipped with a night latch, dead bolt or security chain, provided such devices are openable from the inside without the use of a key or tool.

  8. 5.Fire doors after the minimum elevated temperature has disabled the unlatching mechanism in accordance with listed fire door test procedures.

❖ Where security and life safety objectives conflict, alternative measures, such as those permitted by each of the listed situations, may be applicable.

Item 1 is needed for jails and prisons or locations where someone must be kept inside for their own safety (i.e., dementia wards, psychiatric wards).

Item 2 permits a locking device, such as a double-cylinder dead bolt, on the main entrance door to a building or space. It must be immediately apparent that these doors are locked. For example, such locking devices may have an integral indicator that automatically reflects the “locked” or “unlocked” status of the device. In addition, a sign must be provided that clearly states that the door is to be unlocked when the building or space is occupied. The sign on or adjacent to the door not only reminds employees to unlock the door, but also advises the public that an unacceptable arrangement exists if one finds the door locked. Ideally, the individual who encounters the locked door will notify management and possibly the building official. Note that the use of the key-locking device is revocable by the building official. The locking arrangement is not permitted on any door other than the main exit and, therefore, the employees, security and cleaning crews will have access to other exits without requiring the use of a key. This allowance is not limited just to multiple-exit buildings but also to small buildings with one exit. This option is an alternative to the panic hardware required by Section 1010.1.10.

In Item 3, an automatic flush bolt device is one that is internal to the inactive leaf of a pair of doors. The device has a small “knuckle” that extends from the inactive leaf into an opening in the active leaf. When the active leaf is opened, the bolt is automatically retracted. When the active leaf is closed, the knuckle is pressed into the inactive leaf by the active leaf, extending the flush bolt(s), in the head or sill of the inactive leaf (see Commentary Figure 1010.1.9.3).

Automatic flush bolts on one leaf of a pair of egress doors are acceptable, provided the leaf with the automatic flush bolts is not equipped with a doorknob or other hardware that would imply to the user that the door leaf is unlatched independently of the companion leaf.

Item 4 addresses the need for security in residential dwelling and sleeping units such as hotel rooms, apartments, dormitory rooms or townhouses. The occupants are familiar with the operation of the indicated devices, which are intended to be relatively simple to operate without the use of a key or tool. Note that this item only applies to the door leading from individual dwelling or sleeping units in a building. This item would not be applicable for doors locked as part of a security system in a multiunit building.

Item 5 is in recognition of required test procedures (UL 10B or UL 10C) for listed fire doors, which include the disabling of the locking mechanism when a fire door is exposed to the elevated temperatures of a fire.

I don’t think any of those exceptions apply here: not a jail or prison*, clearly djdn’t remain unlocked while the building was occupied, not an automatic flush bolt, not a residential dwelling or sleeping unit, not a fire door.

*I mean, at that specific moment, someone was being detained but it would be utterly insane to believe that the act of locking people in against their will ipso facto makes it legal to lock people in against their will.

If found guilty, would he receive prison time if he has no prior criminal record? I didn’t read if he does, but I am naive as they come, but I don’t see a judge locking him for a long time if he has been a good citizen to this point. He clearly, clearly did not intend to get anyone killed and he wasn’t drunk driving or shooting shots of himself carelessly.

Doesn’t look like there’s a mandatory minimum for this charge. However, “did not intend to get anyone killed” is what makes it involuntary manslaughter. That’s already baked into the law.

Or this might happen:
https://invidious.privacydev.net/watch?v=G-dvVnoclmw&t=1795

What the training was (if any) will be relevant when the people owning the business get sued by the victims. If the specific thing that happened here was not covered (it certainly is a possibility) they could be in trouble.

I think I may steer clear of convenience stores/gas stations in Detroit. Especially if I only have a low dollar amount purchase.

It seems they do it in Australia too: Would-be thief foiled by locked door at liquor store in Australia - YouTube

Link doesn’t work. Try this.

I tried that first, but it did not cue the correct scene, at 29 minutes and 55 seconds. My link should do it though, at least it worked for me

I got this.


INVIDIOUS

LOG IN

It looks like you found a bug in Invidious!

Before reporting a bug, make sure that you have:

If none of the above helped, please open a new issue on GitHub (preferably in English) and include the following text in your message (do NOT translate that text):

Title: The video returned by YouTube isn't the requested one. (WEB client) (VideoNotAvailableException) Date: 2023-06-09T15:21:57Z Route: /watch?v=G-dvVnoclmw&t=1795 Version: 2023.05.31-16ac3be8 @ master

Backtrace

The video returned by YouTube isn't the requested one. (WEB client) (VideoNotAvailableException) from /usr/share/crystal/src/json/any.cr:249:3 in 'extract_video_info:video_id' from src/invidious/videos.cr:396:10 in 'fetch_video' from src/invidious/videos.cr:384:13 in 'get_video:region' from src/invidious/routes/watch.cr:63:15 in 'handle' from lib/kemal/src/kemal/route.cr:13:9 in '->' from src/invidious/helpers/handlers.cr:30:37 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call_next' from lib/kemal/src/kemal/filter_handler.cr:21:7 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call_next' from src/invidious/helpers/handlers.cr:94:12 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call_next' from src/invidious/helpers/handlers.cr:151:29 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call_next' from src/ext/kemal_static_file_handler.cr:106:14 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/handler.cr:30:7 in 'call' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server/request_processor.cr:51:11 in 'process' from /usr/share/crystal/src/http/server.cr:502:5 in '->' from /usr/share/crystal/src/fiber.cr:146:11 in 'run' from ???

Huh, it was not doing that yesterday. Try this Dobermann (1997) [1080p] - full movie with English subtitles - YouTube or this Select instance - Invidious
I apologize for interrupting this thread with all these extra posts just to post a 10-second clip illustrating some hypothetical pitfalls of those bank entrance doors :slight_smile:

Damn, I was just going to post that. Pretty funny and feeble attempt but at least nobody got killed.