Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shoplifting Apprehension Video

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lynch Mob
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    The subject turns 90 degress to the right and runs to the side as the primary officer attempts to grab his arms. Then we see the officers wrestling with the subject outside. Or do you believe that the officers pushed him backwards through the entire foyer, then pushed him outside the second set of doors to the exterior of the store? He turned to the left, not the right, when he was confronted. That is why the bag, in his left hand, went up. He proceeded to backpedal to the other side of the foyer with the LP agent grabbing his arms. It is interesting how your interpretation of the video changes as you need it to. First he put his hands up and squared off in an aggressive stance, now you have him turning and running. It can't be both.



    I said neither of us know that for sure. Whether or not he was could change how we perceive the officers' actions in that video. Neither of us know for sure, but you make claims that you assume to be true, such as your assumptions in your next statement, without knowing anything. Then you proceed to tell everyone that we don't know for sure what is going on, so we should not assume things. You can't make all the assumptions and tell everyone else not to assume things.



    Yes, because that's standard procedure, just like I assume they observed him commit a theft before attempting to stop them. I have no reason to question those basic elements, because I don't have any evidence to the contrary. As I said, you are assuming a lot. You assume standard procedure is being followed, yet you chastise people who claim to know what "standard procedure" is at JCP. Why would you assume standard procedure is followed when others have told you it is not? Standard procedure is to NOT go hands on, yet the agents did that. Why would they be following standard procedures by identifying themselves? The did not have badges or ID out, but you assume they were yelling it. Even as the first guys lips are not moving.

    Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you actually were in some capacity at some point in your career to actually make an apprehension. Why would I automatically question whether or not your stop was legitimate or whether you identified yourself based on a short video clip of the situation? When you see a stop where procedures are ignored, policy is not followed and mayhem breaks out, you might want to be smart enough to question whether the stop was even good or not. It is just the smart thing to do.
    Despite your jab about me not CURRENTLY being in a postion to apprehend shoplifters, I can say with certainty that I have made more shoplift apprehensions in my lifetime than you have. With over 700 apprehensions in my rearview mirror, it puts me in a great position to fully understand every element and danger in making apprehensions. And, considering that out of those 700 + apprehensions I never had a situation break out like the one in this short clip, it is very easy to critique the failures on the part of LP that CREATED the problem.

    By the way, those 700 apprehensions happened in less than 3 years of work. True, I have not made a shoplift apprehension in more than 12 years now, but that does not mean that I cannot spot bad LP work. It has been almost 20 years since I worked as a police officer and I can still spot a drunk driver too.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Lynch Mob
    I did not see an attempt to flee. I saw him being pushed backward. I just looked at it again to make sure.
    The subject turns 90 degress to the right and runs to the side as the primary officer attempts to grab his arms. Then we see the officers wrestling with the subject outside. Or do you believe that the officers pushed him backwards through the entire foyer, then pushed him outside the second set of doors to the exterior of the store?

    Originally posted by Lynch Mob
    You assume he was known to them as dangerous.
    I said neither of us know that for sure. Whether or not he was could change how we perceive the officers' actions in that video.

    Originally posted by Lynch Mob
    You assume they identified themselves.
    Yes, because that's standard procedure, just like I assume they observed him commit a theft before attempting to stop them. I have no reason to question those basic elements, because I don't have any evidence to the contrary.

    Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you actually were in some capacity at some point in your career to actually make an apprehension. Why would I automatically question whether or not your stop was legitimate or whether you identified yourself based on a short video clip of the situation?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynch Mob
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    Perhaps. However, he then turned to flee, which is not a "natural reaction" to a lawful arrest, unless you are attempting to get away. I did not see an attempt to flee. I saw him being pushed backward. I just looked at it again to make sure.


    Sure, if that was the case. Now, I would assume the officers did identify themselves. It's not hard to yell "<Store> Loss Prevention!" What did you say about assuming things about this video? It seems that you want to assume a lot of things to justify the actions of the LP agents, even though you keep telling us we don't know all the facts. You assume he was known to them as dangerous. You assume they identified themselves. You assume he was fleeing. You assume a lot for a guy who keeps telling us we don't know what really happened.



    I assume this was a legitimate shoplifting apprehension. Whoever posted it stated it was such, and I have no reason to distrust them.
    Who said it was legitimate? I never saw that on the video or on this message board. Why would you assume it was legitimate? Oh yeah, you assume a lot to justify your position.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
    I never said it was a valid defense. I said it was a natural reaction. You tried to claim the LP officers were justified in using force because he put the bag in front of him and his hands up, as if he was preparing to fight. He was not. He reacted as any human being would out of self preservation.
    Perhaps. However, he then turned to flee, which is not a "natural reaction" to a lawful arrest, unless you are attempting to get away.

    Originally posted by Lynch Mob
    Now, it is POSSIBLE that his resisting and fleeing COULD be defensible IF the LP agents did not identify themselves as such.
    Sure, if that was the case. Now, I would assume the officers did identify themselves. It's not hard to yell "<Store> Loss Prevention!"

    Originally posted by Lynch Mob
    Well, how do you even know this guy actually stole anything? What if this was a bad stop? Would that change your perception on whether this was handled correctly or not?
    I assume this was a legitimate shoplifting apprehension. Whoever posted it stated it was such, and I have no reason to distrust them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynch Mob
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    I wasn't aware that "natural defensive act[s]," to include resisting arrest and fleeing, were valid defenses when you are surprised by an arresting authority. I'll be sure to remain "hands-off" next time I identify myself and someone resists and flees, as long as they don't act in an offensive capacity.

    To end this debate: Could this situation have been handled better? Perhaps, but we can't say for certain without knowing any other details. It is clear, however, that the subject did not willingly cooperate with the apprehension. Please do not quote me any more JC Penney policies; I'm not concerned about them. The officers' actions were fully compliant with the law. The end.
    I never said it was a valid defense. I said it was a natural reaction. You tried to claim the LP officers were justified in using force because he put the bag in front of him and his hands up, as if he was preparing to fight. He was not. He reacted as any human being would out of self preservation.

    Now, it is POSSIBLE that his resisting and fleeing COULD be defensible IF the LP agents did not identify themselves as such. In all honesty, I doubt that they did, considering the split second between him hitting the door and them grabbing him. Regardless of whether he stole anything or not, if he has three plain clothes guys charging him, who have not identified themselves, he would be perfectly reasonable to try to avoid them. This is another reason why the tactics in this video are BAD.

    You keep telling us how we should not assume things because we do not know the whole picture. Well, how do you even know this guy actually stole anything? What if this was a bad stop? Would that change your perception on whether this was handled correctly or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • LPCap
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    Yet you feel you are in a position to critique agents' apprehension tactics... Interesting.
    If we all just sit back and tell everyone that they are doing a good job no matter what, where does that get us? I can critique apprehension tactics all day long just as you avoid the question and nitpick on spelling errors to deflect the topic at hand.

    The point of posting this video was to have discussion. Apparently, when someone has a view which is contrary to yours, you feel the need to

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by LPCap View Post
    [. . .] I am not a shoplift agent and therefore have no need to write narratives.

    [M]y company pays me to find videos and other company property which has been leaked to the public.
    Yet you feel you are in a position to critique agents' apprehension tactics... Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
    The bag came to the front as a natural defensive act when confronted with a guy about to plow you over at full speed. It was not an offensive attack.
    I wasn't aware that "natural defensive act[s]," to include resisting arrest and fleeing, were valid defenses when you are surprised by an arresting authority. I'll be sure to remain "hands-off" next time I identify myself and someone resists and flees, as long as they don't act in an offensive capacity.

    To end this debate: Could this situation have been handled better? Perhaps, but we can't say for certain without knowing any other details. It is clear, however, that the subject did not willingly cooperate with the apprehension. Please do not quote me any more JC Penney policies; I'm not concerned about them. The officers' actions were fully compliant with the law. The end.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPCap
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    ... How do your narratives look?
    Originally posted by Security Consultant
    I'm sorry, I do not just buy that. Even as a Director of LP I had to write reports. They went to HR, VPs and the President of the company. Please see my earlier post about defending.
    He was trying to insult me by saying that as a shoplift agent I write crappy narratives. It is a shame that I am not a shoplift agent and therefore have no need to write narratives. (sarcasm)

    I never said that I don't write reports Mr. Baille, and I don't need anyone to defend me. I write reports, not narratives as LPGuy/SecurityDude/Policeman suggested.

    With an informal board, I just type and go - to me it really doesn't matter.

    To answer a question posed by LPGuy, my company pays me to find videos and other company property which has been leaked to the public. I really wouldn't spend my time doing looking at that stuff if I didn't have to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynch Mob
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    I don't believe the officers went "hands on right off the bat." Anytime you approach a subject and identify yourself, and the subject removes his bag slung over his left shoulder and extends both arms out in front of himself, you have a safety issue and an obvious attempt to deflect and flee. If you can't understand this, you're going to wind up hurt one day when you stand there and continue to insist, "Sir, I really need you to come with me!"

    You said before that no matter how much you slowed the video down, you couldn't see these facts. Well, I think you've already proved the limitations of your vision earlier in this thread, so I think I've said enough already...
    I viewed the video. The bag came to the front as a natural defensive act when confronted with a guy about to plow you over at full speed. It was not an offensive attack. If you had to slow it down to come to the determination that it was offensive, then it is clear that it was NOT. You would not have to slow it down to see that. Full speed shows you what really happened, not what you choose to believe when looking at it frame by frame.

    We all have limits to our vision. Sometimes, it is easy to see what you want when you are willing to distort the view enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
    Did ever consider he might be in an elevated position whcih requires he reads and approves reports and not write them!?
    I'm sorry, I do not just buy that. Even as a Director of LP I had to write reports. They went to HR, VPs and the President of the company. Please see my earlier post about defending.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Because I don't view the video as you do I am blind? I will reframe from jibes or insults. I watched the video and no matter how I view it I see several LPs rush to hands on mode. If you don't see it the same we can agree to disagree rather than belittle each others eyesight

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
    Wrong you do not go hands on right off the bat. There were three LP no call to go hands on and especially without cause. Sorry guys there was no cause the subject was not given anytime to give cause.
    I don't believe the officers went "hands on right off the bat." Anytime you approach a subject and identify yourself, and the subject removes his bag slung over his left shoulder and extends both arms out in front of himself, you have a safety issue and an obvious attempt to deflect and flee. If you can't understand this, you're going to wind up hurt one day when you stand there and continue to insist, "Sir, I really need you to come with me!"

    You said before that no matter how much you slowed the video down, you couldn't see these facts. Well, I think you've already proved the limitations of your vision earlier in this thread, so I think I've said enough already...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Wrong you do not go hands on right off the bat. Repeat offender known fighter means nothing. There were three LP no call to go hands on and especially without cause. Sorry guys there was no cause the subject was not given anytime to give cause. These are "cowboy" LPs who will sooner or later cause serious issues for their employers. By the way as I stated I am familar with JCP policy and they did not meet that criteria before going hands on. Its behavior and actions like this that only prove what lynchmob and others has been saying about LP for sometime
    Last edited by panther10758; 07-05-2007, 11:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    I am firmly with LPGuy on this one. Though my experience in Loss Prevention is limited, my experience in reviewing videos and operating in unorthodox tactics is not.

    There's stuff I have done that if you guys watched on YouTube, you would probably say, "That S/O is out of line." But as security, sometimes we have to run operations by the skin of our teeth.

    As LPGuy said, you don't know the story here. What if this guy is a repeat offender? Known for flight? etc...

    Looks like a good apprehension to me. They instilled a manuever and completed their goal. Subject appears to have been taken into LP custody without visible injury or extended period of fighting.

    We can't play lovey-dovey officer friendly with every single person we meet out there. Sometimes a swift shock and awe intervention is what is needed.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X