“A Canadian man who admitted shoplifting C$106 in razor blades has been awarded C$12,000 ($10,645) for injuries he suffered when he was tackled by store security guards. … [Daniel] Baines, who represented himself, said employees of the supermarket in a Vancouver suburb used unreasonable force when he struggled during his capture.” (Reuters, Apr. 20). Which suggests once again that Canada has still not “Americanized” its litigation system in any thoroughgoing way: how unlikely is it that a suit in a large American city by an injured-while-struggling thief, if successful, would result in an award as modest as $10,645? More: compare Jun. 13, 2006 (Rochester, N.Y. case).
Canada: “Crook wins damages for injury during theft”
“A Canadian man who admitted shoplifting C$106 in razor blades has been awarded C$12,000 ($10,645) for injuries he suffered when he was tackled by store security guards. … [Daniel] Baines, who represented himself, said employees of the supermarket in a Vancouver suburb used unreasonable force when he struggled during his capture.” (Reuters, Apr. 20). Which […]
17 Comments
Would there be a code of conduct for anybody who has been able to apprehend a thief like this . Should we all read the Miranda rights to them . What if the crook is armed . Are we all ,even as an average citizen, to receive the police training, and where do we go from here ? Is it logical to say that $10,645 is a modest amount ? it is a one months salary for a primary caer giver in many parts of our country,when the crook should have received nothing.Perhaps the million dollar question remains , should I let him go, and massage his ego , or nab him , and have to stroke some lawyers (in this case the crook himself, anyway)ego.What are my incentive of even responding, as long as the damage remains small ($106 worth) .Is the world coming to an end ?
Baines, who represented himself, said employees of the supermarket in a Vancouver suburb used unreasonable force when he struggled during his capture. Baines lost a tooth in the incident, and said he now has trouble speaking.
Consider it an occupational hazard.
It wasn’t the job of the store’s employees to try to apprehend the thief. Their job is to get a good description of him and to call the Police. What do you think the lawsuit would look like if a customer had been hurt in the scuffle?
Wasn’t there a story here about how some retailers are backing off from their “All shoplifters will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” policies? Something about it not being cost-effective. I remember reading on CNN about a Walmart store being criticized by the local Police, because of the number of shoplifting cpmplaints it filed. Maybe crime does pay.
Well Jim.
No it probably wasn’t in the job description of the employees to apprehend the thief. But should we really tell employees that they should not attempt to rise above the bare minimums of their job descriptions?
From a general society standpoint what is the optimum level of uncertainty that a thief should expect? One camp wishes everyone to surrender at every opportunity (cheese eating surrender monkeys) so that thieves never feel threatened and they all, it is hoped, go peaceably on their way after robbing us. This camp wishes to do this by disarming all law abiding citizens of weapons, including firearms, knives, as well as disarming us of the notion of even a good Chuck Norris ass whoopin’. The risk of success in this direction means that more will go into thievery as the risk/benefit ratio improves.
The other camp wishes to shoot on site, which raises the risk threshold for the thieves. Some will steer clear of this type of occupation, others will improve their fire-power, begetting an arms race.
Somewhere in the middle of each extreme there lies a minimum of total harm; balancing harms from armed criminal action and harms from rampant unchecked crime.
WalMart has taken a short term approach to it’s books with condoning small time theft. But the secondary effect of enabling more petty theft is that these thieves will spill over to other areas of the community. I’m not so happy that WalMart is becoming an enabler of the petty theft community and the other associated negative elements that comes with it.
While I agree that it sounds ridiculous that a person can sue the store he robbed, the issue is not that simple.
Imagine if a store owner found an 8 year old kid shoplifting a piece of gum. Does the store owner really have the right to shoot and kill the kid?
If you say “yes” well I guess we have nothing to talk about.
However, if you say “no” you’re admitting that apprehending criminals has some limits. I don’t know if the retailer in this story did or didn’t exceed those limits. But apparently, the judge believes that while retailers have the right to stop and apprehend criminals, they do not have the right to beat them.
You might argue that retailers should have absolute immunity from stopping criminals in their store. That might sound good, but it would only be a matter of time before my hypothetical involving a dead 8 year old comes true.
You might then argue that retailers should have immunity except for grossly negligent acts. But criminals could still sue as they would simply argue that the act was grossly negligent. So that wouldn’t really help even this case.
Is the award compensation for loss of income since the thief is unable to steal due to injury? Can this victim claim Workers’ Compensation?
Fish,
Your argument borders on the absurd. Forgive me, make that is absurd.
First, even supposing that we allowed ABSOLUTE immunity, shooting folks would only apply if they were fleeing. You would still not have a right to try,convict and execute.
Next, such a policy would be so negatively viewed by the public, that it would not be cost effective. Who would shop at a store where they risked being shot while security was apprehending a shoplifter?
IF it wasn’t for the fact that the defendant is harmed by unrecoverable legal costs simply by being sued, I would not much mind the courts settling these matters. But businesses deserve to know the rules BEFOREHAND. We should have clear and enforcible statements of what is and is not allowed.
Fish,
I think we can agree that (a) the shoplifter was an adult, and (b) the store employees went after him unarmed.
While there certainly is a boundary that should not be crossed in defense of one’s goods, this seems to be clearly within it.
Ima Fish ,
Why Imagine so much , why not stick to the matters of the case . Your 8 yr old dead boy is just a red herring , to obfuscate a common sense issue . You are really thinking like a lawyer.Hope the storeowners don’t start imagining like you.
OBQuiet, maybe I’m just a poor writer, but I think you misread my posting. I’m not in favor of shop owners having the right to shoot shoplifters of any age.
Jb. “While there certainly is a boundary that should not be crossed in defense of one’s goods, this seems to be clearly within it.”
From the article I read, it was not clear to me. The guy claimed he was “beat up” and the judge believed it. I personally do know know what “beat up” means in this context. And even more importantly to me, was he the cause of the beating, i.e., did they have to subdue him because he initiated a fight or resisted his apprehension? I don’t know. The article is sparse.
However, while I’m of the opinion that a retailer does have the right to stop and detain criminals, it does not have any right to beat up criminals. Any punishment should be carried out by the courts.
Aniban: “Why Imagine so much , why not stick to the matters of the case . Your 8 yr old dead boy is just a red herring , to obfuscate a common sense issue . You are really thinking like a lawyer”
Actually, I was thinking like a philosopher. For example, Descartes imagined a world where nothing was certain in an attempt to determine if there was any certainty in the world. Hume imagined that there was no certainty in any judgment based on cause in effect to determine if any such judgment could be trusted. And of course Socrates/Plato would take assertions down to their fundamental nature to determine if they contained any truth.
Thus my example was not used “to obfuscate a common sense issue” but was the use of common sense to show how retailers do in fact have some limits. And from what I gather, you seem to agree that they have such limits.
You disagree with the judge in this case. As I don’t know the facts, I do not have an opinion either way. My point isn’t to say that the judge was right or wrong in this case. My point is that retailers do have limits.
$100 worth of razor blades? Dude must have some weird, wild beard!
nevins,
What if this guy had a gun or knife? You have already made sure that your employees are not armed because of company policy. It would be different if this guy was posing a threat to someone, but from what I read he was just fleeing the store. Why take a chance on getting hurt for a few dollars of merchandise? Ever see the movie Article 99? An administrator demands that a security guard disarms a man with an M-16. The guard responds “for $3.25 an hour, no f***ing way.”. If this guy had pulled a gun and an employee shot and killed him, I’d be first in line to buy the employee a beer. This guy wasn’t a threat, let him go and let the Police earn their money.
Fish,
Or maybe I am the poor writer. I notice, belatedly that my post seems rude rather than witty and sarcastic. I apologize for that. Both for being rude and for not being witty.
But my point was that EVEN assuming your imagined absolute immunity, retailers would still be constrained from shooting suspected shoplifters so you conclusion, “it would only be a matter of time before my hypothetical involving a dead 8 year old comes true” would be unlike to come about.
The article doesn’t give enough facts to base an informed opinion on. Was the thief injured by being tackled? Was he tackled, then kicked in the face repeatedly? Did he have a gun? Did the guard have a gun? I can imagine some scenarios where this judgment was proper, and some where it’s outrageous.
Most of the commenters above seem to have the right idea. Those tending to atmospherics probably have never gotten their hands dirty, so to speak.
but from what I read he was just fleeing the store. Why take a chance on getting hurt for a few dollars of merchandise?
Does your gut sense allows that if your bag get snatched , and the thug is fleeing away .You don’t ’cause may be you are lazy , incompetant, overweight blah blah .., even if you have a chance.No offence though.And the Dollar amount you mentioned may not appear that small to everyone. So where do you draw the line ? and who are you say that the guy was not a threat,sitting in front of a computer.
Imafish,
Everyone , including police officers ,do have limits but this is not a finite one and everytime the goal post is shifted on court decisions which are meddlesome, expensive , sometiimes unscientific and decided by lay juries which might not have the clues and bloody hell this disproportionately affects people whoa re most sued and get on the defendants side , and it costs a lot even to prove your innocence . Don’t you think the store owners behaved appropriately. Would you,ve done something different?
Jim Collins, maybe $100 (c) isn’t a lot of money to you, but how many times a day does this have to happen before the store is no longer profitable and just closes? The grocery business has a very thin margin, thanks to competitive pressures, so it takes a lot of sales to replace the money. Let each runner get away, and the prices go up, and soon the store is closed. Also, face it, the police will not find a shoplifter who is not detained.