Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rudolphus
Respectfully, you missed the whole point. The Walmart employee is a civilian and not empowered to make a non-felony criminal stop. When he attempted to he became the criminal as he was initiating an assault. To wit the “customer” was well within his rights to defend himself from a potential threat. Had the Walmart employee tried this on an armed individual he may well be more than just unemployed.

You would think so, but you are wrong in Florida and that is where this happened.

Florida Statute 812.015

(3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time. In the case of a farmer, taking into custody shall be effectuated only on property owned or leased by the farmer. In the event the merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.

(b) The activation of an antishoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.

(c) The taking into custody and detention by a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, if done in compliance with all the requirements of this subsection, shall not render such law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant's employee, farmer, or a transit agency's employee or agent, criminally or civilly liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention.

You have to do it right, promptly call the police, etc., but your main assertion is that you cannot be held by an employee and the law says the opposite.
50 posted on 01/12/2010 9:45:33 PM PST by NonValueAdded ("'Diversity' is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think." Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: NonValueAdded

Okay point taken. I thought maybe I should have thrown a disclaimer out there that I have always worked in Michigan and other States may be different. I also neglected to mention that I’ve been out of the Law Enforcement business for 10 years so things may have changed.


51 posted on 01/13/2010 5:11:09 AM PST by Rudolphus (Tagline? I don't need no steenkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson