Circut City again Is detaining someone against their will without legal right to do so kidnapping?

Since we have now determined that violating a contract does not constitute a legal reason for detaining someone against their will this question now arises..

Is physically detaining someone against their will without legal reason to do so kidnapping?

:eyes:

Read the article

:sigh:

I thought this was all played out

It's really quite simple, was the Circuit City employee guilty of kidnapping when he unlawfully detained the man who wrote the article?

Yes or no?

nuff said

LOL!

Amen...this is a case of a guy looking for a fight.

I realize we are all going off the deep end

Because I do. Besides if I were to steal, the bag from the cashier is the last place I'm going to put my loot and it's not like the stolen item will be on the receipt, so I see this particular practice as an exercise in training the sheeple. How do you think we got to where we are with our government today? Too many people just blindly trusting and accepting what the authorities told them. "It doesn't really hurt anything, it's just a little inconvenience." So you don't see any harm in it.. that's fine, I guess you don't mind giving your hard earned dollars to a corporation that treats its customers like criminals while using them to keep their employees honest. I work hard for my money and I'm not going to spend it where I'm treated like shit. It's the principle of it. But calling people assholes because they don't see it your way isn't going to win the argument.

and we all being a bunch of causeheads here make this the protest du'jour.

Anyhow why was he shopping at Circuit City - I started to boycott them ages ago when the laid off all the high paid store employees in favor of minimum wage kids. Plus Circuit City is a major corporation - shouldn't he be finding his purchases at some independant store. PLUS he was buying gifts that were probably not made by US workers that were shipped cheaply into this company thanks to some stupid trade agreement. If I wanted to protest Circuit City I could clearly find a cause that would be worthy of a protest.

I have shown my receipts millions of times well over a decade - if this guy wants to be a dickhead and ruin his family's birthday party then why should I celebrate it?

that we have the option of par-taking in or not. We all have different pet issues just like we all have different opinions. For example: I think the least productive section of DU is the lounge so I don't go there, but I would never drop in and tell them there's more important things to discuss besids the new recipe for chicken soup. Yes, the big causes are important but just like another poster said; "the injustice doesn't have to be on the same scale as Gitmo for it to be just as wrong."

Both shoplifting and employee theft are horrible problems in retail, and it's very frustrating to not be able to do anything about the the shrinkage problem (no, not THAT kind).

That you will not answer such a simple question shows the weakness of your position.

What was the question and I'll answer it so you will know what my position is.

THE AUTHORITARIANS. Then again, maybe you won't be.

SNIP

"OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It’s about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.

“Well,” you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.” Or maybe you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve believed this for years.” Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the “Introduction” link on this page?

Because if you do, you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities--one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

But I still want to say that a wrong doesn't have to rise to the level of Gitmo in order for anyone to care about it. I don't think I or anyone else who disagrees is being silly or making a big deal out of nothing. I don't want stores holding people against their will over policy issues. I like the fact that it is against the law, and happen to feel it should stay that way.

But I do tend to hestitate at the pet cause of the day - especially when it's from a random blogger.

I just think there are more important things out there - but that's just my silly opinion and does it matter anymore after 3 glasses of Sauvignon Blanc.

Anyhow - the lounge has a 2 new rallying cries - Receipts and "Did you read the article"

This is an issue that has come up before. It just blew up this time for some reason. But, something similar actually happened to a DUer and they posted about it, so it's definitely not the first time it's come up.

These, Tom, are the Causeheads. They find a world-threatening issue and stick with it for about a week

I love to protest but I don't want to be a 'causehead' and that's exactly what I was seeing today. Next week it'll be something else that DUers will be raising hell over.

BTW - I read some of your posts - they were great

Oops. I think I misunderstood.

I don't get involved in a lot of discussions on DU when I'm a mod, but when I do I really get involved. :)

Is that OK?

:d

Why will no one answer the question?

You're about 12 hours too late

Waay worse than this, with far less importance to Americans.

in short all private citizens, even if they work for circuit city! imagine that! they are still citizens! have a right to detain someone if they believe that person has committed a felony

otherwise it would not be legal to work as a security guard at all, because a security guard is a PRIVATE person who detains suspicious persons

I'm assuming you've also questioned the police officer, the store manager and the kid manning the security desk along with all the witnesses include his family.

Please don't be a lawyer - I'd rip your case to shreds in about 15 seconds flat.

If you read the article the blogger clearly admit to not wanting to 'live life smoothly'. He called the cops and yet the cops arrested him. Perhaps there's more than what this blogger wants to share with us.

Who knows - there is 2 sides to every story and then there is the truth.

You wish to go off on hypotheticals.

There has already been a couple of DU'ers who have posted their similar experiences.

Are you calling them liars too?

He had a wide stance

Ventroloquist, maybe?

Unless they actually broke the law, in which case it may be lawful.

I believe that this is Tort law v. criminal law.

If they had put a hand on him it would have been assault..

They didn't put a hand on him, did they? Putting a hand on them would've been Battery, actually. But, whatever.

The unlawful detention of a person on their private property is, from my recollection, Tort law, especially since they DIDN'T touch the individual. Again, whatever.

They physically prevented him from leaving..

Frankly if it were me I would have told the driver to drive off and let the guy try to stop the car.

I don't think that the individual tried hard enough to leave (like you, I'd have done much of what you stated). Actually, I'd have stayed in the car, called the cops and charged the individual with obstruction. Alas, he didn't.

I'm on the side of the blogger over the cop, and I'm on the side of anyone against rent-a-cop parking lot bullshit. However, these folks need to know the proper action in these cases.

n/t

I'd really like to know..

Illegally keeping you where you are, against your will,
is "unlawful detention", also called "unlawful restraint".

Illegally taking you somewhere else against your will is kidnapping.

n/t

At least they have frickin beds...

lindsay lohan drove off with some young men in the stolen car who didn't want to be there in the infamous chase -- and yet she wasn't charged w. kidnapping, i'm pretty sure if "the black kid" was driver taking off w. lohan, yeah he would have been charged

in the circuit city case, it's iffier, it sounds like they felt they had reason to believe a felony theft had occurred, in which case it ain't kidnapping, any citizen, including an employee of circuit city has a right to make a citizen's arrest and detain someone who has committed a felony

again, it's iffy if they thought he had stolen a small (misdemeanor) quantity of goods whether they could detain him legally or not -- here you would need to have a ruling in a court of law

but the guy acted fishy, they thought he was a thief, sorry to say -- probably not kidnapping, probably perfectly proper and something that happens every day

you do understand that all shoplifters and thieves pose as "normal" shoppers and try to avoid being detained, searched, etc? nobody yells louder about "i know my rights" than the thief, ask any cop

which is a tort, and may also be a crime.

Kidnapping is false imprisonment plus moving the person.

In Delaware we had a "law school exam" case where a defendant assaulted and raped the victim, and he dragged her about 20 feet to the place he did it, and that 20 feet drag inspired the prosecution to charge the defendant with kidnapping too. If I remember right, the court found that did not cut it.

False imprisonment is holding someone else against their will, and can be committed even for doing that for a short time. So if you do that AND move them somewhere else, it is kidnapping.

That's the common law definition anyway. Each state by now has its myriads of rules.

And a major felony?

That really doesn't make much sense to me..

"Unlawful restraint" happens a million times a day.

If you're trying to avoid an argument by leaving
a bar, and the drunk-assed FReeper who's arguing
with you blocks your path to the door, that's "unlawful restraint".

It happens all the time.

But KIDNAPPING doesn't generally happen as a crime in and of itself;
it's generally a precursor to much more serious offenses.

Someone blocking you from leaving an area is operating on a very different
wavelength from someone who tosses you in a car trunk and takes you
to a remote cabin in the woods, knowhutImean?

The LAW knows what I mean, and it views those offenses accordingly.

It was a representative of Circuit City deliberately detaining someone without cause.

the act counts, mostly.

police officers might have different rules, but Joe the security guard and the drunken freeper are both liable for false imprisonment if their acts fall under the definition.

So the same act can be both a tort and a crime.

Assault is a tort for which you can sue for civil damages. You can get a judgment for medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering.

The same act could be a crime, for which the state has to prove the act beyond a reasonable doubt, if it does, criminal penalties apply, such as fines or jail time. Fines are set by statute and paid to the state.

This is what happened in the OJ case. The state filed a criminal charge. Defendant was acquitted.

The survivors of the victims filed a civil suit. They recovered damages. The burden of proof is set at a lower bar for civil cases, so that jury found there was enough evidence to make him liable for damages.

"This is Circuit City. We have your wife. If you do not show up and present a suitcase full of receipts, she'll be swimming with the fishes..."





"Is physically detaining someone against their will without legal reason to do so kidnapping?"

Of course-- when I was two, my mother physically detained me every time I left the house. Hand holding, carrying me, etc. And I know it was against my will as she's told me how much I struggled against it.

I hope there's no statute of limitations on this so I can sue her. If I play my cards right, I may be able to squeeze twenty-five bucks out of the 'emotional distress' angle. Of course, I'll end up spending that at either Circuit City or the Olive Garden...