The officer walked away from the inquest. He did no jail time, and his actions were excused. It took a subsequent local & federal investigation to show that not only he, but his squad, were bigots who conspired to deprive people of their civil rights. But the shooting itself has never even been tried as a criminal matter, ending with the 6-1 vote by the coroners’s inquest.
But as far as Nevada law goes, the officer was not a criminal for shooting an unarmed man in the back (while he was on his knees, surrendering).
Also, as a lawyer, I’m sure you know that settling a case without an admission of culpability happens all the time, and is indicative only of the defendant’s willingness to spend money. If a defendant feels it would be cheaper to settle without paying the lawyers for the court time, then they will settle.
As an aside, since my first post supports your contentions… why are you so hostile?
(my apologies for this slight hijack, just trying to clarify)
(NOTE: Bricker was actually referring to the Perrin case, and he clarified this in his next post.)
Negative. Re-read. The object was not in his waistband, it was found on the ground near his body.
from story #1:
This is about the same size as most Nokia or non-flip cellular phones.
We have no evidence other than the word of the shooter that Perrin reached into his waistband. The officer never ensured that it was a gun. The officer, in Nevada, is not required to ensure anything. He only has to state that he thought he or others might be in danger, and the coroner’s inquest can then find the shooting justifiable.
Now Bricker- are you really telling us, that despite the letter of the law- that if a business had the alarm go off every time anyone went out- then a high Court couldn’t overturn the “letter of the law” in a specific case? :dubious:
Even by the loosest definitions I don’t think a prudent human being could assert that the jury found his actions negligent.
None of the reasons given for settling the lawsuit were based on his negligence, if even he was found negligent, which he was not.
Apparently, the money was the important thing.
Again…for the record. I’ve only read the two linked articles and have done no further research; so things may have changed, in which case I capitulate.
It has been a lot of years, but I used to work for Montgomery Wards back in the mid 70s.
Our LP guys were buddies of mine and they explained that to make a shoplift arrest they had to have the following:
[ol]
[li]See the person pick up the item [/li][li]Follow the person to ensure that they did not drop the item (or pay for it)[/li][li]Wait until the person had passed the last register, or better yet, had their hand on the door[/li][/ol]
Before they could stop them and have a hope in hell that the charge would stick when it went to court.
FTR several times during when I worked there they caught senior citizens shoplifiting. dead to rights. No question about guilt, and the SC would be found not guilty. (Not guilty because she looks like somebody’s grandma). After the not guilty verdict the store would get sued for false arrest. Go figure.
Also our LP guys were allowed to use force if necessary, but no guns.
I have also wondered how the electronic alarm fits in California law as far as probable cause. My personal opinion is that the electronic alarm does not meet PC, again I have no idea what local law says about it.
Well, remember that it’s not automatic – charges are prosecuted at the discretion of the District Attorney (State’s Attorney / Commonwealth’s Attorney). Merely because you insist on charges being pressed doesn’t mean that charges will be pressed.
But the admission from the neighbor that he broke in should be absolutely admissible against him, if charges were pressed, as an admission against interest.
Sure - but that goes to weight of evidence, not admissibility.
If the business had fraudulently set the alarm to go off every single time, then I suppose a court could find that the device was not an actual electronic article surveillance device within the meaning of the law.
I took your “every single time” to be hyperbole. But yes, I grant that if the device were going off every single time, then it’s not really an electronic article surveillance device.
Let me get this right, you invite me into your store so that I may buy something that is yours. I buy it (contract complete). Now that object is mine. I am on my way home with something that is mine. You want me to have to prove it to you. F’ that, you sold it to me and it is now mine, if you try to detain me I will use whatever force I need to get away (it won’t be pretty - I promise) and then alert the authorties.
(the term ‘you’ can apply to a corporation and people who are employed and acting on behalf of the corp).
Yeah, it is. But to protect myself from shoplifting (and thus higher prices to cover the loss) and to dispell any doubt that you in fact are the legal owner of that lamp, I need to see some sort of proof we had a completed contract.
If you walk off without showing it, whether you bought it or not, regardless of me shouting “Stop, or I shall yell ‘Stop’ again!”, I have even more grounds to call the police because now I suspect you have essentially shoplifted that item–left the premises without making/showing proof of ownership.
Sure you can tell me to “F’ off!”. And I can tell the police you’re a shoplifter.
Tripler
I’m sure you’d have that reciept with you in court, if you weren’t. . .
No, you don’t. If he had been a shoplifter, you should have seen him approach, select and conceal the merchandise, maintain uninterrupted observation of him, and see him fail to pay for the merchandise. If you had done that, you wouldn’t need to ask for a receipt.
Yeah, I do. I should have if I were a good shopkeeper, but “should” doesn’t equate to “required”. By your rationale, only those who are constantly under surveillance are capable of shoplifting. If I had maintained uninterrupted observation of him and saw him pay for the merchandise . . . or heck, even if I was the cashier at the point of sale without having to watch him the whole time, I wouldn’t need to ask for a reciept. That person may have put a bag of pencils in his pocket, intending to pay for it, but completely forgetting about it. Even though he willingly intended to pay, he didn’t, and thus, is a shoplifter.
I don’t need to watch a person completely to suspect a shoplifter any more than I don’t need to watch someone drink to suspect they’re drunk. Suspicions may, and ought to be investigated. My choice to ask you for a reciept is part of my investigation.
But, a lot of video cameras and those electronic gate things are helping me passively keep an eye on everyone.
Why are folks so confrontational? It is in your interest for stores to be able to catch shoplifters. If I had an item I bought and the electronic device went off I wouldn’t be all indignant about it. Do you think the stores are out to antagonize their customers?
The law doesn’t tend to support your position. My post was taken directly from websites aimed at merchants explaining what was needed for them to have probable cause to detain someone.
And also possibly calling 911 to carry away the clueless store dick you just seriously maimed, or possibly even killed, while he forceably attempted to detain you. Since you knew you didn’t steal anything, and in fact could prove this, you would have a strong argument that you were just defending yourself against an improper assault. Perhaps the person was a mugger or kidnapper, and not a store dick. What store dick would attempt to detain someone if they didn’t even see the person conceal merchandise? (The receipt proves that you openly paid for it.)
I don’t really need to see proof you own your underwear. I’ll just take your word for it.
This is a great concept, if you walk into a store with only one employee: the cashier. With corporations having hundreds of employees, this kind of thinking is more or less useless.
Great! If you contact the police, that’ll help me in identifying who you are. And having watched a situation or two (No! I swear, I was just a bystander), I’m sure the police will ask you for a reciept too. (On that note, if it were later on in the month, and you had say, a credit card statement that reflects you bought that $20 lamp for $20, I would assume that’d work too). What the police would do after they arrive is something I could only speculate on.
This I agree with. However, corporations (and their employees) need to protect themselves. I’m sensing you’re getting upset about the whole ‘detained’ thing. But when you’re in that store, you’re on private property, and some expectations of “guilty until proven innocent” are unfortunately suspended.
The only problem I have with this is that your laws may not apply to me, here, in Montana. I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not citing any law: I’m just explaining how it is. But if you have a cite, I’ll more than happily take a look at it.
I can suspect anyone of anything at any time, and can ask them for proof. Whether or not they decide to show it to me is their decision. And if I had watched them attempt to abscond with the item, I’d still have to ask them for a reciept to verify ownership–or the shoplifter would voluntarily provide it. If he doesn’t have one, I’m going to further assume that property is stolen. Either way, there’s proof in that paperwork.
Tripler
I’m kinda hoping a police officer would show up in this thread to clarify further. . .
You ARE innocent until proven guilty. The question is whether a merchant has probable cause to detain you pending an investigation. The merchant is not convicting you of theft by or throwing you in prison by asking for a receipt.
I would have to research the statutes and case law to be sure, but it seems that if the buzzer goes off at the door, the merchant has probable cause to detain you and may employ reasonable force to do so if necessary.
What if the buzzer goes off, the merchant attempts to detain the person, and the customer uses reasonable force to resist? Assume in this case the customer did indeed pay for the merchandise, and has a receipt. Could the customer be charged with assault for using reasonable force against the house dick?