If someone were to come into my house and I were to lock them in the basement that would be a tort?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

I honestly don't see how detaining someone against their will could be just a tort.

As in my title, if someone were to freely come into my home and they willingly came to my basement and I were to lock them in there and keep them indefinitely, that would only be a tort and not a criminal act?

To me that just doesn't make sense.

In what substantive way is that different than what happened in the Circuit City parking lot that has been so much discussed tonight?

[Ravy]

1. Suspecting the person of a crime is a substantive difference. nt

[The Vinyl Ripper]

2. There was no reason to suspect the man of a crime..

He had not been observed attempting to steal anything.

[Ravy]

34. How do you know from reading the blog?

He had purchased one item... then went and purchased another and walked out with both items. Perhaps the employee didn't see him purchase the first item, yet saw him stick it in the bag with the second purchase.

I don't think either of us knows what really happened.

I *do* know of incidents where people do legal things in a supicious manner hoping to get falsely accused in an attempt to collect on ensuing lawsuits.

[Bluebear]

3. 'As in my OP' . . wha?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

7. Sorry, I meant as in my title... n/t

[Bluebear]

12. :)

[Bitwit1234]

4. A tort is if a person is injured or there is negligence on someones part

and is not something you could have a civil suit for.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

5. Then what is "tort reform" all about? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

8. Preventing citizens from suing companies. I.e., that poster has no idea what the fuck they're...

... talking about.

[TahitiNut]

14. ... or, don't forget, medical malpractice.

:puke:

[BlooInBloo]

19. I didn't. HMOs and Hospitals are companies.

[tabasco]

9. Say what?

A tort is a civil wrong and is the basis for most civil suits.

[BlooInBloo]

6. I call that "a good date".

[The Vinyl Ripper]

10. You're a kinky little sucker, ain't you?

:D

[BlooInBloo]

20. I prefer to say "open-minded". lol!

[TahitiNut]

44. Tort. Not tart. Tort.

:silly:

[BlooInBloo]

52. Why not have BOTH???

Torts with tarts! W00t!!!!!

[jobycom]

11. This is weird.

You're actually comparing the two?

First, if someone came to your home, tried to leave with a bag with an unknown object they didn't have when they showed up, refused to show you what was in the bag, pushed past you, and ran for the front door where a running car waited at the curb, you'd be able to lock them in your basement until the cops showed up without any fear of facing charges. Hell, in Texas you might be able to shoot them in the back.

Second, the CC case involved a man who did everything except write "I'm a thief!" on his teeshirt. He wasn't held against his will, as evidenced by the fact that he was able to walk back to the store, call the police, wait patiently for them to arrive, and tell his side of the story--a side the cops rejected.

Third, dude's lucky the car wasn't searched. It should have been. I met a dozen shoplifters who sounded just like him when I worked retail. If there wasn't an IPod or another DVD crammed behind the car seat, I'd be surprised.

[BlooInBloo]

18. You cast it poorly...

... In a store, there's the EXPECTATION that people will be leaving with bags of stuff they didn't have when they came. That's the whole point of a STORE. That expectation forces a higher standard of probable cause to search a customer.

That, and NO private party has a standing right to search thru ANY of my belongings. Not my car, not my house, not my pockets, not my body, not MY bag.

[jobycom]

23. If you are in their store

they have the right to ask for a receipt to prove that the merchandise you are carrying out is yours, and not theirs. If you bolt from their store after refusing to show proof, they have probable cause to call the cops and detain you until you prove you paid for the merchandise you are leaving with.

And in most electronics stores, there is the EXPECTATION that the store will check your receipt as you leave.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

28. They have the right to ask

And you have the right to refuse.

I don't care if there is an EXPECTATION, what matters is the law.

And the law says that they have to observe you in the act of stealing, something which did not happen in this case.

[jobycom]

53. Wrong

That's a myth. You can be arrested and convicted of shoplifting even if no one saw you actually lift the item. It's more difficult to prove that the item was shoplifted if no one saw you do it, so the rule of thumb for security forces or cops is that someone had to witness it happen. But shoplifting is a crime, regardless of how you get caught at it.

[LynneSin]

13. Turns out this story is more or less an internet hoax to scam people

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1750542

Turns out the guy got a shitload of money and yet he has a defensive fund where he's sucking in money from bleeding hearts falling for that crap.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

16. We've already had a DU'er relate a very simlar story.. n/t

And besides, my question is hypothetical

[sandnsea]

15. Intent?

That situation sounded very borderline. There does have to be some sort of intent to actually commit a crime and since the employee called the cops very quickly, it may not have been a criminal act to detain someone for the cops. Citizens arrest, maybe something in the statutes, Good Samaritan laws that require intervention when a crime is committed, etc.

Whether the company policy is a civil violation is another matter, a tort.

In your basement? Don't try that. Too "silence of the lambs" I think. :)

What do I know, I'm just blathering.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

17. The employee did not call the cops in the story..

It was the person being detained.

[sandnsea]

21. Well then he wasn't being detained

If you've got enough freedom to call the cops, you've got enough freedom to leave.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

25. Cell phone..

The store employee refused to let them shut the car door and drive away, that's detainment.

[sandnsea]

27. Yeah, see #24

It sounded like it happened really fast. I think a store employee has the right to ask to check the bag, maybe get insistent even.

At that moment ---

The shopper can walk away or choose to wait for cops to be called, as far as I know.

Since the shopper called the cops in this instance, then it isn't a detention, wouldn't that be right?

[jberryhill]

29. Uh no...

He was in the car with the door closed and ready to go.

He wanted to carry on, so he then opened the door again.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

31. At which point the store employee then physically prevented him from closing the door..

Personally I would have told the driver to take off and let the guy try to stop the car.

[tabasco]

22. It was probably a crime.

If the store had no reasonable belief to think the person had shoplifted, they may have committed the crime of false imprisonment, but it depends on the state law. If they acted negligently, it would be a tort.

[sandnsea]

24. I thought he was outside on the sidewalk

I don't see how he was truly detained. It sounds like words were exchanged quickly and the cops were called. Sounds like a willing situation to wait for the cops to sort it out.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

26. The store employee physically prevented them from closing the car door

And driving away.

That is detainment.

[jberryhill]

30. *After* he opened it to talk

The guy can't operate a car window.

The door was shut and he was inside.

He opened it again to engage in scholarly debate with the manager.

[sandnsea]

For how long though

A few seconds before the shopper said he was calling the cops. I just think it sounds very borderline as to a real detention.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

33. What difference does that make?

Seriously, what is the dividing line?

[sandnsea]

42. The manager can do his job

We can walk around on the planet and talk to each other. I can stand in front of a car, and say - please, please, just give me a minute to talk to you - without that being a detainment.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

45. But that was not what happened..

The store employee physically prevented them from shutting the car door.

[sandnsea]

48. If he physically touched him

then that's battery. When you go into a store to do business, you enter into a loose contract that includes being talked to. I think having someone follow you out of the store regarding your business transaction is reasonable. Standing in front of your car is a stretch, but if it was just a few seconds, I think most juries would accept it as someone reasonably doing their job and protecting their property, and that's what matters in the end.

[sandnsea]

50. "I pushed my way past Joe"

He was in the car and asked the guy what the problem was. "Joe" came over to the car to talk to him, leaned against the car because that's how normal people speak to someone in a car.

He then tells Joe he will gladly wait for the police to arrive.

Then he says he pushes the guy out of the way to call the police.

All in a matter of seconds.

Where's the illegal detention? The punk in the car was looking for a fight. It isn't even borderline.


"I twice asked Joe to back away from the car so that I could close the door. Joe refused. On three occasions I tried to pull the door closed but Joe pushed back on the door with his hip and hands. I then gave Joe three options:

“Accuse me of shoplifting and call the police. I will gladly wait for them to arrive.”
“Back away from the car so that I can close the door and drive away.”
“If you refuse to let me leave I will be forced to call the police.”

Joe didn’t budge. At this point I pushed my way past Joe and walked onto the sidewalk next to the building. I pulled out my phone and dialed 911.

Two minutes later Brooklyn, Ohio police officer Ernie Arroyo arrived on the scene."

[jberryhill]

35. Who shivs a git

Let's talk about the detainment of the labor that made his precious piece of Disney merchandise and every other item in the freakin' store.

What comes around, goes around.

[tabasco]

36. A willing situation?

The person did not set out on the shopping day intending to wait around for the police. Waiting for the police could be found to be part of the detention. IIRC, physical restraint is not necessary, just threats.

[sandnsea]

40. the shopper willingly waited for the cops

A threat would have to be to cause bodily injury, which I don't think happened. I'm just saying if the manager just stepped in front of the vehicle for a few seconds to make his point, I think most people would consider that him doing his job.

[tabasco]

49. As I understand it, the store personnel had no reasonable belief

to think the customer had stolen something. Therefore, any detention, no matter how short, is unjustified and a basis for a cause of action.

The threat does not have to be of bodily harm. Threats or a show of apparent authority are sufficient. But it always depends on the state laws and how they have modified the common law.

Do you think a business should be allowed to search anyone, at will?

What a sad state of affairs in the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave."

The descent to serfdom is well underway!

[sandnsea]

51. See #50 above, it didn't happen that way n/t

[jberryhill]

32. If my adult son did that to a child daughter of mine...

...he'd be spending next Labor Day on his own, thank you.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

38. What did he do that was so wrong?

Stand up for his rights?

It was the store employees and the cop that escalated the situation.

[jberryhill]

43. You really don't get it, do you?

What he did was to be invited to spend Labor Day weekend with his father and his father's second wife. (note - it's not "Dad & Mom" in the story)

Didja notice this guy is an adult, so is "my sister" an adult who flew in - not "one of my sisters" but "my sister". The other children in the story are half siblings from the later marriage.

So... Dad invited him to spend "Labor Day Weekend'.

Oh, wait a minute, it's a birthday for one of the kids from Dad's second marriage. "Remembered" my ass - he never knew those kids birthdays to begin with.

He realizes that this is not "holiday weekend with Dad". He's been roped into celebrating the birthday of a half sibling who, unlike him at that age, has two parents.

It's very important in his narrative to point out that both of those kids from the second marriage started crying during his martyrdom to buy precious a present.

No reaction by either Dad or second wife is noted. Their reaction is not important. Why? Because the point was to grab back the attention he lost when Dad was raising a second family.

The "whole family" is in the car. Dad's only role is to pay bail. Adult sister and "that woman" are non-entities in terms of reaction or comment.

But those two kids with the two parents - yeah.... they cried. GOOOOOOAAAALLL!

Do the math. How old is Righi? How old are the two younger children? How old was Righi when the two other children were born?

It must have been painful for him as a teenager to have Dad distracted like that.

Put the intellect on hold for a second, and use your emotional sense to figure out this story.

Nobody else in that family had a choice in this drama. If he wanted to prove a point he could go back later on his own. He didn't need to do that to the kids - not on her birthday. Tell me about their rights.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

46. I don't follow you at all..

The man made an impromptu stop at Circuit City, who then escalated a situation that they had no right to do.

The cop had no reason at all to ask for the man's license after he saw the merchandise was not stolen.

[jberryhill]

47. No, you obviously don't

I don't think you are going to either.

He peed on his half sister's birthday celebration because he didn't get that kind of attention when he was her age.

If you are going to remain fixated on the store, the cop, the law, and all that stuff, then, yes, you are not going to understand against whom he was acting out or why.

Read the story again. This time, forget about the store, the cop and the law. Piece together what you can of this family and his relationships in it.

[Gregorian]

37. It's false imprisonment.

Wikipedia has a bunch of good stuff on this. See tort.

[1932]

39. It's both a tort and a crime.

The state will put you on trial for the crime and the punishment will be to separate you from society, but that won't get your victim any money.

Your victim can sue you in civil court for the tort, and your victim will get money (but you can't go to jail for losing a civil case).

Because, with the crime, we're talking about losing your liberty (and not just money) the state has to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

With the civil suit, since only money is at stake, the plaintiff only requires a preponderance of the evidence to win.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

41. My question was in response to someone on another thread

Who claimed that unlawful detainment was only a tort..

Which basically blew my mind.