# Limits of use of force in self-defense? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 3, 2007, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951 "2007-09-03T23:22:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/41 "2007-09-06T22:20:32Z")
[QUOTE=jimmycat] Geez pravnik, you just don’t get it do you??? Your reference to United States v. Jacobson delt with plain view seizure. [/quote] It dealt with the DEA’s plain view, _after_ the private parties examined the damaged package, opened it, took out the crumpled newspaper, took out the tube wrapped in duct tape, cut off the duct tape, opened the tube, took out the ziplock baggie inside, opened it, opened the second baggie inside that, opened the third baggie inside that, opened the fourth baggie inside _that_, and _then_ found the cocaine, which by then I will concede was in “plain view.” This didn’t implicate the Fourth Amendment, because they were private parties. > [@jimmycat](#): > > An exception to the general requirement of a valid search warrant to legitimize a search or seizure. “A search implies a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed, and it is not a search to observe that which is open to view.” 193 N.E. 202, 203. Thus, it is not a search for an officer to observe or hear something by one of his natural senses, 474 F. 2d 1071, nor when common means of enhancing the senses such as a flashlight, 422 F. 2d 185, or binoculars, 319 N.E. 2d 332, are used. But the use of such devices may be so intrusive as to constitute a search in the case of a high-powered telescope, or x-ray machine, 495 F. 2d 799. See LaFave, Search and Seizure §2.2 (3d ed. 1996). For a plain view seizure to be reasonable the officers must satisfy two requirements: first, there must be legal justification to be in the position in which seizable property is observed; secondly, it must be immediately apparent that the item is subject to seizure. 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2308. Thank you, [answers.com!](http://www.answers.com/topic/plain-view?cat=biz-fin) The plain view doctrine is an exception to the warrant requirement for government agents. > [@jimmycat](#): > > What we are talking about here is the authority under which the security guard can “seize” the suspected shoplifter and evidence of the crime. Please read Tyhesha Lemon v. State of Indiana and the Sept. 6, 2007 edition of the NY Times ([http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903EFD71238F934A25755C0A9659C8B63](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903EFD71238F934A25755C0A9659C8B63)) and I think you may get a clearer picture of what I have been trying to tell you the entire time. You need to read your cites. From your second article: > [@](#): > > **No department store is legally required to provide the same safeguards as are the police.** Legal experts say that retailers are held to a standard somewhere in between that of the police and that of citizens making an arrest – a standard known as **merchants’ privileges,** which allow stores around the nation to detain people on suspicion of shoplifting without police involvement. Emphasis mine, as this is what I’ve been saying all along. Just in case there’s any doubt about the status of the law in New Youk, where the article takes place: > [@](#): > > Defendant first contends that County Court erred in denying suppression of the evidence discovered by the security guards because they had been performing a public function that amounted to state action and, thus, their search was illegal. We cannot agree. Under both the Fourth Amendment and the NY Constitution, evidence acquired in a warrantless search by a private citizen need not be suppressed unless the citizen was acting as an agent of the police. [People of the State of New York v. Ruppert](http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_06182.htm), 2007 NY Slip Op 06182. So, once again, how the store is liable for illegal search and seizure under the U.S. Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/42 "2007-09-06T22:27:33Z")
[QUOTE=jimmycat] Under the Tyhesha Lemon v. State of Indiana ruling, the court ruled that the private security guard was not wrong for using the force he felt necessary to make an arrest of Lemon who he attempted to apprehend for trespass. The facts of this particular case however, also justified Lemon’s reaction to her preceived unreasonable force. What this case highlights with respect to the case that started this thread is that the security guard was within his right to confinscate the shoplifters bag, even if it drew blood. The culpability of the shoplifters subsequent relalitory or resistive behavior however, would need to be determined on a case by case basis. [/QUOTE] You mean [this case](http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DCqpV0jcO3IJ:www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07060707pdm.pdf+%22Tyhesha+Lemon+v.+State+of+Indiana%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)? It doesn’t have anything to do with the Fourth Amendment or the Constitution. The words “Constitution,” “Amendment,” and “Fourth” don’t even appear in it. ---
**Author:** ![jimmycat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimmycat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmycat)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/43 "2007-09-06T23:06:14Z")
[QUOTE=pravnik] You mean [this case](http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DCqpV0jcO3IJ:www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07060707pdm.pdf+%22Tyhesha+Lemon+v.+State+of+Indiana%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)? [/QUOTE] Thank you for making my point. You argue for the sake of arguing. And your arguments are WAY off base. :smack: The original question was whether the security guard overstepped his bounds and whether the reaction of the thief by “snap kicking” him in the privates was lawful. I believe I answered the question. You, my friend, attempt to contradict my ‘cites’ with a plain 'ol “nuh uh.” What is your position with regards to the original question at hand? Lawful or unlawful? Your ENTIRE position thus far has been to bring up court cases and legal terminology in a futile attempt to discredit one single line from my text about illegal search and seizure. All the time skirting the facts at hand. You’re parents hate you don’t they? 😕 If you really have an interest in being a paralegal, I suspect you can get one online. Just do a google search. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/44 "2007-09-06T23:11:30Z")
[QUOTE=jimmycat] This is exactly the type of person who walks into a grocery store, walks through the yellow signs that say, “Caution, wet floor”, slips, falls, and then trys to sue the store. Balthisar from Michigan, you can NOT use a self-defese cop-out to RETALIATE against a perceived authority figure when they are attempting to prevent a crime they believe to be perpetrated by you. You will lose that one in court everytime. Where I come from, ALL private security personnel are required to be certified by the state who gives them limited police authority. As such, an illegal search of someone’s person would fall under the US Constitution. [/QUOTE] That might be a big difference. Around here, even you could become a security guard. Yeah, even the second they issue you the uniform. The reason I’m not an asshole that goes around suing stores has clearly got to be because I’m being misunderstood. All you people aren’t seriously condoning outright assault? Not willing to show a receipt will never, ever be upheld as a reasonable suspicion which permits the whole legal tangle to unfold in the first place, whether you’re in state with limited police powers or only the limited power of citizens arrest. No reasonable cause = no right to search = if you grab my shit, you’re assaulting me. If you draw blood, then I’m defending myself, because that’s a serious goddamned assault. Or we all just assuming that the poor, innocent security guard simply swiped the bag in an innocent, non-threatening manner? As you say, this isn’t about vengence, and if I’m totally misunderstanding what happened, then I’ll gladly accept that I’m mistaken. But as described, the security guard would have committed assault against me, and purloined my private property outside of any legal jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/45 "2007-09-06T23:16:05Z")
[QUOTE=jimmycat] Thank you for making my point. You argue for the sake of arguing. And your arguments are WAY off base. :smack: The original question was whether the security guard overstepped his bounds and whether the reaction of the thief by “snap kicking” him in the privates was lawful. I believe I answered the question. You, my friend, attempt to contradict my ‘cites’ with a plain 'ol “nuh uh.” What is your position with regards to the original question at hand? Lawful or unlawful? [/quote] I never expressed any opinion on the original question. All _I_ wanted to know was where you got the idea that a security guard had the right to detain you from _Terry_, and what made you think the guard and the store was “liable for illegal search and seizure under the U.S. Constitution.” > [@jimmycat](#): > > Your ENTIRE position thus far has been to bring up court cases and legal terminology in a futile attempt to discredit one single line from my text about illegal search and seizure. Yes! Yes! Finally! Thank God! That’s been my only question from the get go! > [@jimmycat](#): > > All the time skirting the facts at hand. You’re parents hate you don’t they? 😕 First, what facts? Second, I just saw my parents, and if they hate me, they forgot to mention it. > [@jimmycat](#): > > If you really have an interest in being a paralegal, I suspect you can get one online. Just do a google search. I’m a practicing attorney. Second in my class, even. ---
**Author:** ![jimmycat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimmycat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmycat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/46 "2007-09-07T00:13:58Z")
[QUOTE=Balthisar] Not willing to show a receipt will never, ever be upheld as a reasonable suspicion… No reasonable cause = no right to search = if you grab my shit, you’re assaulting me. If you draw blood, then I’m defending myself, because that’s a serious goddamned assault. [/QUOTE] Balthisar, if asked to see your store receipt from a security guard (which you probably still have in your hand, since you just left the checkout line), why on God’s green earth don’t you just show it to him and aviod the confrontation? My God, grow up! Also, in my state, if someone grabs your ‘shit’ it isn’t “assault.” If they draw blood on your hand or arm inadvertantly when they grab your ‘shit,’ it sure as hell isn’t “serious goddamned assault.” Assault is defined as intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing physical injury to another. Physical injury is defined impairment of physical condition or substantial pain. To satisfy the ‘substantial pain’ portion, one would need to be hurt to the degree in which medical intervention is deemed necessary and prescription painkillers are prescribed. If the ‘injury’ is not of this degree, then instead of _assault_ one may be guilty of _harassment_. ---
**Author:** ![jimmycat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimmycat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmycat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/47 "2007-09-07T00:32:22Z")
To sum up my stance on the original question: Was the guard within his authority to stop and detain the suspected shoplifter? **Yes.** Was the guard within his authority to take the bag from the suspected shoplifter when they refused to hand it over? **Yes.** Was the suspected shoplifter within their right to ‘snap kick’ him? **No.** Would the security guard be criminally culpable for harassment against the suspected shoplifter? **No.** Would the security guard and ultimately the company he works for be civilly liable for damages to the suspected shoplifter as a result of the incident (cut to hand)? **Yes, however damages may range from ZERO to whatever. It would be based on the opinion of the court of jurisdiction.** Would the suspected shoplifter be criminally culpable for any person to person crime(s) against the guard? **Yes.** Would the suspected shoplifter be civilly liable for any damages the guard sustained as a result of the ‘snap kick’? **Yes.** Here is the part pravnik got hung up on: Is the security guard acting as an agent of the store? **Yes.** Is the store liable for the guards actions? **Yes.** Does the guard have the right to search a closed container for evidence of the theft? **No.** If the guard searched said closed container and discovered store property, contraband, or other unlawful items, could that evidence be used against the suspected shoplifter sucessfully in court? **No.** _Such evidence may be supressed as fruit of the poisonous tree._ pravnik, this is where the US Constitution comes in. Right to illegal search and seizure. _ **pravnik, if you work really, really hard, one day you may become a pretty average public defender!!!** __Ha,ha…just kidding…you know I love you._ ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/48 "2007-09-07T01:03:32Z")
[QUOTE=jimmycat] Balthisar, if asked to see your store receipt from a security guard (which you probably still have in your hand, since you just left the checkout line), why on God’s green earth don’t you just show it to him and aviod the confrontation? My God, grow up! [/quote] It’s moot. Don’t you understand that it doesn’t matter why? Maybe I don’t want to be a sheep like you. Maybe it’s already stuffed in the bottom of the bag. Maybe I’m just an asshole. It doesn’t matter what the answer is. Why do people like you automatically want to submit to stuff like this? If I want to try the same trick of avoiding the subject at hand, then I’ll say it’s sheep like you that won’t question their orders when it comes time to gas the Jews – you’ll just go right ahead and do it. > [@](#): > > Also, in my state, if someone grabs your ‘shit’ it isn’t “assault.” If they draw blood on your hand or arm inadvertantly when they grab your ‘shit,’ it sure as hell isn’t “serious goddamned assault.” Assault is defined as intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing physical injury to another. Physical injury is defined impairment of physical condition or substantial pain. To satisfy the ‘substantial pain’ portion, one would need to be hurt to the degree in which medical intervention is deemed necessary and prescription painkillers are prescribed. If the ‘injury’ is not of this degree, then instead of _assault_ one may be guilty of _harassment_. Your state sucks. Or you’re talking about some degree of aggravated assault, or you don’t realize there are probably 10 to 30 different grades of assault with all kinds of conditions that define them. You’ll have misdemeanor assault, felonious assaults, aggravated assaults, and combinations thereof. Making someone afraid of bodily injury – even if you don’t actually cause any – is a generally accepted common definition of assault. That’s just for making them afraid. Now if you actually _cause_ an injury, that kind of steps it up a notch. I’ve just consulted Michigan laws. Go check yours. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/49 "2007-09-07T01:15:03Z")
Boiled down: Guard: Let me see your receipt. Me: No, that’s okay. I’m not at a warehouse club where I’ve agreed as a condition of membership, and this is now my private property. Unless you think you have reasonable cause. Gaurd: I have no reasonable cause, but I’m an authority figure because I have a uniform and make $12.80 an hour. Therefore despite having no reasonable cause I will forcibly remove your property from your person, and injure you in the process. Me: ouch, I’m in the process of having my private property removed from my person with no reasonable cause by a person that has no jurisdiction to do so legally, and it hurts, and now blood is flowing out, and I don’t know what this crazy, law-breaking, power-hungry, authority-abusing maniac is likely to do next. He’s already crossed the line legally and morally. There’s no telling where this will end. I best subdue him for my own protection. Where the hell am I wrong in this? Seriously, I’m starting to have serious doubts about some of my fellow Dopers if the guard is the good guy in this situation. If I’ve misinterpreted something, let me know, and as I said above, I’ll concede the position. But this is pretty friggin’ cut and dry. ---
**Author:** ![jimmycat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimmycat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmycat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/50 "2007-09-07T01:53:43Z")
[QUOTE=Balthisar] Your state sucks. Or you’re talking about some degree of aggravated assault, or you don’t realize there are probably 10 to 30 different grades of assault [/QUOTE] Hmm…never heard of assault in the 30th degree. That’s a new one on me. Generally in most states, they have Assault I, Assault II, and Assault III, which is a felony assaults. Assault IV, which is misdemeanor assault. Harassment, which also a misdemeanor. Obviously, the deliniations won’t be the same in every state, but they also won’t vary too greatly. [QUOTE=Balthisar] Making someone afraid of bodily injury – even if you don’t actually cause any – is a generally accepted common definition of assault. [/QUOTE] Not assault. It’s the misdemanor crime of _Menacing._ [QUOTE=Balthisar] Gaurd: I have no reasonable cause, but I’m an authority figure because I have a uniform and make $12.80 an hour. Therefore despite having no reasonable cause I will forcibly remove your property from your person, and injure you in the process. [/QUOTE] I can see you live in a fantasy land because this was never the case. [QUOTE=Balthisar] But this is pretty friggin’ cut and dry. [/QUOTE] Yup, cut and dry…you have **NO IDEA** what you are talking about! [QUOTE=Balthisar] It’s moot. Maybe I’m just an asshole. [/QUOTE] Yep, you’re probably right! ---
**Author:** ![BlakeTyner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@BlakeTyner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlakeTyner)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/51 "2007-09-07T02:10:52Z")
Dang, now y’all have me wondering something… I’ve heard - either on the news or on the net - that there have been some cases when someone spit on someone else, and was charged with assault. I realize that would vary by jurisdiction, but does anybody know of a case where that’s happened? I vaguely recall that the spitee was a law enforcement officer, but that may or may not be correct. I think the general idea is that spitting on someone (or throwing blood/semen on them) runs the risk of infecting them with a host of nasty diseases, which is why it would be assault. But, like I say, I’m drawing a blank on whether that’s actually the case or not. ---
**Author:** ![jimmycat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimmycat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmycat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/52 "2007-09-07T02:38:56Z")
[QUOTE=Balthisar] Boiled down: Guard: Let me see your receipt. Balthisar: No, that’s okay. \*_Says some smart ass comment and makes a fool of himself_. Guard: Please come with me, we have you on tape shoplifting. Balthisar: \*because he is a self-admitted asshole, believes his whole world is crashing down in front of his eyes. See’s himself as Neo from the Matrix and believes its his personal responsibility to _stick it to the man._ He tries to kick the guard with his Birkenstocks using a move he saw on cable TV. Screams that he is “being assaulted” when the guard grabs him by the collar and takes him to the office. Guard: Calls police. Balthisar: Thinks he knows the law. Unknown to the rest of the world why he thinks that. Guard:Explains to police what happened. Balthisar:Explains to police what didn’t really happen. Police:Arrest Balthisar for harassment and theft. Balthisar: Believes the police (Agent Smith) is in collusion with the security guard and plans his lawsuit to include the police officer. \*_ **And the moral to the story kiddies is that Balthisar loses his case with the store but receives a settlement from the city because its cheaper for the city to pay Balthisar to go away then to litigate the case. Balthisar knows this and his income is based on these types of settlements. He leaches on the American public by using these baseless tort claims as a profitable way to, once again, stick it to the man. The city in turn, must take money away from things like our public education system to pay Balthisar. Balthisar doesn’t care however, Balthisar just got paid.** _ ---
**Author:** ![jimmycat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimmycat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmycat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/53 "2007-09-07T02:42:47Z")
[QUOTE=BlakeTyner] Dang, now y’all have me wondering something… I’ve heard - either on the news or on the net - that there have been some cases when someone spit on someone else, and was charged with assault. I realize that would vary by jurisdiction, but does anybody know of a case where that’s happened? I vaguely recall that the spitee was a law enforcement officer, but that may or may not be correct. I think the general idea is that spitting on someone (or throwing blood/semen on them) runs the risk of infecting them with a host of nasty diseases, which is why it would be assault. But, like I say, I’m drawing a blank on whether that’s actually the case or not. [/QUOTE] Yes, there are many, many cases of this. Again however, it would vary by state. In my state, the simple spitting on someone would constitute _harassment_. If the spitter knew that his spit contained a viral pathogen likely to infect the spitee, the correct charge would be _attempt assault_. If the viral pathogen infected the spitee, the charge would be upped to _assault_. ---
**Author:** ![BlakeTyner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@BlakeTyner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlakeTyner)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/54 "2007-09-07T04:10:42Z")
[QUOTE=jimmycat] Yes, there are many, many cases of this. Again however, it would vary by state. In my state, the simple spitting on someone would constitute _harassment_. If the spitter knew that his spit contained a viral pathogen likely to infect the spitee, the correct charge would be _attempt assault_. If the viral pathogen infected the spitee, the charge would be upped to _assault_. [/QUOTE] Ah, thanks **Jimmycat** , that makes sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2007, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/55 "2007-09-07T17:35:22Z")
[QUOTE=jimmycat] Here is the part pravnik got hung up on: Is the security guard acting as an agent of the store? **Yes.** Is the store liable for the guards actions? **Yes.** [/quote] Yes, but not the same way a city is liable for the actions of its police. Stores are viacariously liable for the actions of its employees in furtherance of the store’s interests under respondeat superior. The city is liable for the constitutional torts of its police in a 1983 action. You can sue the store for an assault or false imprisonment to the degree that the guard goes beyond shopkeeper’s privilege, but you can’t sue the store under a 1983 action for a guard’s illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. They’re not state actors. > [@jimmycat](#): > > Does the guard have the right to search a closed container for evidence of the theft? **No.** > > If the guard searched said closed container and discovered store property, contraband, or other unlawful items, could that evidence be used against the suspected shoplifter sucessfully in court? **No.** _Such evidence may be supressed as fruit of the poisonous tree._ pravnik, this is where the US Constitution comes in. Right to illegal search and seizure. Generally, this isn’t the case; the evidence will come in and the Constitution won’t. Most courts have ruled that the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to searches by security guards because they are not state actors, but rather private citizens to whom the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply, e.g. the _People v. Ruppert_ case I linked to earlier. There are some exceptions when the security guard is an off-duty police officer, but even then some courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply if the officer is pursuing the store’s interests rather than law enforcements. > [@jimmycat](#): > > _ **pravnik, if you work really, really hard, one day you may become a pretty average public defender!!!** __Ha,ha..just kidding…you know I love you._ Hey, don’t knock the PD’s. I know some pretty sharp ones. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/56 "2007-09-08T01:01:49Z")
[QUOTE=jimmycat] Guard: Please come with me, we have you on tape shoplifting. [/QUOTE] I hate to stoop to ad hominem attacks, but quid pro quo. This shows that you’re the fucking retard / asshole / whatever you want to think, because the whole point is that there’s nothing on tape showing me shoplifting. If it were, or they even professed there were, that’s probably cause. That changes the rest of the exchange. That doesn’t involve an assault. Try again, asswipe. Oh, FYI, [assault](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault) (pretty general, but covers my point without superfluous B.S.). :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/57 "2007-09-08T05:30:05Z")
**[Moderator Warning]** **Balthisar** and **jimmycat** , insults outside the pit are not permitted. I may have more to say once I have a chance to read through the thread. This thread seems to be hopelessly off track. If you want to discuss this further, take it to GD or the Pit. I’m closing it. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/58 "2007-09-08T05:49:55Z")
**jimmycat** , your posts have been unnecessarily intemperate and provocative from your very first one. Although you have provided some information on the subject of the OP, it would have been far better not to have larded it with so much personal opinion and invective. In particular, the following parts of your posts were not appropriate for GQ: > [@](#): > > What kind of world do we live in where any accusation, however small, is a personal threat to our liberty and we must resort to violence? No wonder our children are heading off to school with bulletproof backpacks! Its because their parents (people like those who have posted to this thread) are too quick to back violence or retaillitory behavior. Shame on you. > [@](#): > > My God, grow up! > [@](#): > > pravnik, if you work really, really hard, one day you may become a pretty average public defender!!! Ha,ha..just kidding…you know I love you. > [@](#): > > I can see you live in a fantasy land because this was never the case. > [@](#): > > Balthisar: \*because he is a self-admitted asshole, believes his whole world is crashing down in front of his eyes. See’s himself as Neo from the Matrix and believes its his personal responsibility to stick it to the man. He tries to kick the guard with his Birkenstocks using a move he saw on cable TV. Screams that he is “being assaulted” when the guard grabs him by the collar and takes him to the office. > [@](#): > > \*And the moral to the story kiddies is that Balthisar loses his case with the store but receives a settlement from the city because its cheaper for the city to pay Balthisar to go away then to litigate the case. Balthisar knows this and his income is based on these types of settlements. He leaches on the American public by using these baseless tort claims as a profitable way to, once again, stick it to the man. The city in turn, must take money away from things like our public education system to pay Balthisar. Balthisar doesn’t care however, Balthisar just got paid. If you continue to post in this manner, you are likely to find your posting privileges in jeopardy. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951/59 "2007-09-08T05:54:00Z")
[QUOTE=Balthisar] I hate to stoop to ad hominem attacks, but quid pro quo. This shows that you’re the fucking retard / asshole / whatever you want to think, because the whole point is that there’s nothing on tape showing me shoplifting. If it were, or they even professed there were, that’s probably cause. That changes the rest of the exchange. That doesn’t involve an assault. Try again, asswipe. [/QUOTE] **Balthisar** , you’ve been around long enough to know better than this. Regardless of how provocative or insulting **jimmycat** was being, retaliation in GQ is not permitted. E-mail a moderator, or take it to the Pit. Colibri General Questions Moderator [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limits-of-use-of-force-in-self-defense/417951.md?page=2)