Target doesn't determine the policy of the circumstances under which an arrest warrants restraint; that's entirely up to the police.
When Target called the police to arrest the suspect, they had either a plainclothes store detective or videotape of the suspect. They almost certainly also had him with stolen property on his person.
When he got to the office, they got him to sign an admission which, among other things, absolved them from any wrongful termination / false arrest charges, at which point they said: "OK, we're agreeable. You're fired. Goodbye."
Unless this woman gets a Stacey Anthony jury, she is going to get nothing, because unlike the bleeding heart liberals on this thread, agreeing to let the kid go without charging him was a good thing for him, and not any kind of indicator of "lack of evidence."
In future, I guess people think it would be better for Target to have put a conviction in this kid's jacket. Seriously? To whose benefit would that be?
You are unfamiliar with case law.
How did you glean the information of what they had, by the way?
This has FZ’s hind end’s DNA all over it.