Poll of the Day > American man had to call the POLICE on his TINDER DATE because she won't LEAVE!

(+) Yeah! (+)

A desperate American Man on reddit called the Coppers on his TINDER date after she REFUSED to leave his house for 2 DAYS!!..during which she stole his watch and some of his mail too!

The man went out with a woman named "Jennifer" last week after matching on Tinder and hooked up back at his house.

She insisted on staying until he finally called 5-0 who reportedly arrested her after finding expired license plates on her car and items she cased at his house

The man asked Reddit for advice writing in desperation: Help, i hooked up with this chick on Tinder and she hasn't left my house in 2 days

He said after they did the nasty, he suggested she go home cause he had work in the morning.

He said "I told her earlier she had to go before bedtime cause i have to go up early for work. She asked me if i she could stay for idnner and i said OK. Then she passed out and when i tried to wake her up to ask her to leave, she said No i'm too tired. I'm a pretty nice guy and i hate confrontation."

The next day she still REFUSED to leave and then became desperate over another day and took a picture of the witch sleeping on his bed..then after debating with reddit users, he finally called the police

When police came they found out she stole a watch from him as well as some mail and several other items.

He said "It was a rather crazy and very stressful situation that really made me think about whether this dating and the dating apps are so useful. Thi sis why you don't have people come over right away when meeting them from an app. This is basically a nightmare situation".

Would you ever do the Nasty on a First Date? let's see if people would

The Crazy Girl -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/09/40FD244D00000578-4561710-A_man_from_the_US_rang_the_police_after_his_Tinder_date_refused_-a-22_1496305414196.jpg

Tinder -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/08/0497C226000003E8-0-image-a-1_1496302803557.jpg
---

whoa
---

He's lucky that he got off easy. In some states, he would need to legally evict her which could take months.
---

mrduckbear posted...

The Crazy Girl -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/09/40FD244D00000578-4561710-A_man_from_the_US_rang_the_police_after_his_Tinder_date_refused_-a-22_1496305414196.jpg

What's the bother of posting a photo at all if the face is blurred and the body covered?
---

mrduckbear posted...

Would you ever do the Nasty on a First Date with a guy/girl?

I never have and probably never will but I'm not against the idea.
---

Zeus posted...

He's lucky that he got off easy. In some states, he would need to legally evict her which could take months.

I'm pretty sure that would only happen if she stayed between 30-60 days, depending upon which state they live in.
---

Weird situation he found himself in. And I'm sure there are worse things...but this...it's as strange as it is funny.

XD
---

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Zeus posted...

He's lucky that he got off easy. In some states, he would need to legally evict her which could take months.

I'm pretty sure that would only happen if she stayed between 30-60 days, depending upon which state they live in.

One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.
---

I'm yet to meet a normal girl on Tinder, it's packed with crazies

in fact that pretty much goes for any 30+ woman who's good looking and single
---

What_The_Chris posted...

I'm yet to meet a normal girl on Tinder, it's packed with crazies

Probably why the service is for hook-ups rather than dates.
---

Zeus posted...

mrduckbear posted...

The Crazy Girl -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/09/40FD244D00000578-4561710-A_man_from_the_US_rang_the_police_after_his_Tinder_date_refused_-a-22_1496305414196.jpg

What's the bother of posting a photo at all if the face is blurred and the body covered?

Why not point out the equally as pointless pic of tinder?

Go_Totodile posted...

Zeus posted...

mrduckbear posted...

The Crazy Girl -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/09/40FD244D00000578-4561710-A_man_from_the_US_rang_the_police_after_his_Tinder_date_refused_-a-22_1496305414196.jpg

What's the bother of posting a photo at all if the face is blurred and the body covered?

Why not point out the equally as pointless pic of tinder?

Because I might have forgotten what the Tinder logo looks like? And hey, it's not blurred out!
---

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
---

That guy is a huge pussy.
---

Zeus posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Zeus posted...

He's lucky that he got off easy. In some states, he would need to legally evict her which could take months.

I'm pretty sure that would only happen if she stayed between 30-60 days, depending upon which state they live in.

One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.

Bloody hell, do some of these states consider the person a tenant from just a stay of one or two days?
---

First date from a website you should always meet up in a public place and never go to each other's residence.

He waited 2 days to call the police?

If you don't leave after I say you should I am calling the police on you immediately. You are trespassing at that point.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

Zeus posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Zeus posted...

He's lucky that he got off easy. In some states, he would need to legally evict her which could take months.

I'm pretty sure that would only happen if she stayed between 30-60 days, depending upon which state they live in.

One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.

Bloody hell, do some of these states consider the person a tenant from just a stay of one or two days?

It's not just some states, but many due to the police not wanting to get involved without a court order. Even squatters in CA where a pain to get rid off, Air BnB's had a similar problem etc, it can seriously be hard in many states to get someone out of your home if they don't want to leave. Your best bet is to not let ANYONE in your home that you wouldn't be ok with having there for 30 days (at least).

That being said, I would probably run to the store (or have a friend do it) and buy a few of those bug bombs that stink really bad, and release them in the house. Should force them to leave and then lock the door behind them hehe. Problem solved and no cops needed.
---

Zeus posted...

One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.

Yeah they were lying about it. No state would ever claim that bullshit unless the cops were just being lazy.
---

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.

Yeah they were lying about it. No state would ever claim that bullshit unless the cops were just being lazy.

Nah, California at least had a bunch of problems like this, especially with Air BnB....which had to recompensate the people involved etc. They had a few news reports about problems people where having getting rid of Air BnB guests etc. The end result of which was that they where going to do more background checks or something on people lol.

Not all states are that crazy but I guess enough problems have come up that many areas in CA won't even touch evicting a person from a home (no matter how they got in the home lol) without a court order.

If you just lie and say they where never invited in and just showed up, perhaps that would work, but in this case he admitted to letting her in, so probably would have had no help from the cops in CA at least (or some of them).
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.

What if someone disposes of the evidence (Eats it for instance) before leaving? I mean, if you go into a store, eat a donut, and walk out, there is no evidence the donut even existed.....(unless they have video maybe), so what do they do?
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm

No you don't. Just have to prove intent.
---

Can you imagine being that spineless?
---

Again, you have to wonder about evidence here, how do you prove people are trying to shoplift, if you have no video, and no physical evidence left?

If someone is going to shoplift but can tell they have been spotted, and returns the items in the store, even if they are apprehended and the cops are called, how can they prove they actually where going to leave with the items.

I get (from that article) that the intent is all that is needed (IE hiding clothes in a purse), but if those clothes are removed before the police get there or the person is apprehended by a clerk etc, then it's just the clerks word against theirs (no physical evidence at all).

More specifically, what about things that can be ingested etc, or are not labeled etc.

If there are no cameras and someone comes in, grabs a donut and eats it, for instance, how do you prove it was not a donut from elsewhere they ate, or that there was even a donut to begin with.

This things have to be figured out or homeless people etc would just wander into stores and eat all the donuts etc.

Perhaps they have cameras watching all areas with food etc?
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm

No you don't. Just have to prove intent.

Let me just quote your last paragraph there.

Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store.

And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm

No you don't. Just have to prove intent.

Let me just quote your last paragraph there.

Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store.

And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.

You can't be charged with false arrest if your actions can be justified. It can be difficult to prove theft prior to exiting, yes, but it's possible to do so. Back when I was a police officer, one of the first people I arrested was a shoplifter at Target and we arrested them in the store. He was about to leave and that's when we stopped him, hence proof of intent.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm

No you don't. Just have to prove intent.

Let me just quote your last paragraph there.

Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store.

And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.

See this is what really confuses me, how do you prevent people from just wandering in, eating stuff, and leaving? It can't be a big problem or they would have to have more security etc. I know dinning and dashing is a thing, and I have seen people arrested for it (although again, not exactly sure how they can really protect themselves from it), but at least in that case they have a ticket order, and plates with food that was eaten etc, as proof.

For dinning and dashing though, why wouldn't people just get up to use the restroom etc, and then leave from there, especially if they didn't finish all the food etc? I would imagine it's almost impossible to actually stop people from doing that, but then you have like 200+ people in my area standing around with signs asking for money for food etc.

So yeah, why would they stand for the whole day, begging for food, if they could literally just go into any resteraunt, order food, eat it, then leave without paying.

I for instance often just leave my money on the table and leave without waiting for someone to come (since I don't want change anyway), never once have I been asked to wait or anything.

I could probably have not paid for like 80% of the meals I have had and gotten away with it, just by not actually leaving money behind (I'm impatient and when I'm done eating I don't like sitting in front of dirty plates).

There has to be SOMETHING that prevents this from happening regularly. I mean, even if you went to jail for a night or two or something, if you g ot a super delicious steak dinner with lobster/shrimp etc out of it....I could see alot of homeless people being down for that.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm

No you don't. Just have to prove intent.

Let me just quote your last paragraph there.

Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store.

And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.

You can't be charged with false arrest if your actions can be justified. It can be difficult to prove theft prior to exiting, yes, but it's possible to do so. Back when I was a police officer, one of the first people I arrested was a shoplifter at Target and we arrested them in the store. He was about to leave and that's when we stopped him, hence proof of intent.

That is the thing though, you open yourself up for a lawsuit (well at least the company does), and possible damages if the person was tackled etc. You can't justify the actions if you can't prove there was any criminal activity (the person was shoplifting etc), which you can't do if they don't have the items on them anymore.

So if the person ditches the items, even if the clerk picks them up and says "he was hiding these in his coat) etc, unless there is a video or something, I don't think it would be a good idea to try and arrest them and go to court over that. It opens you up to way too much liability and potential to be sued, for way too little return.

Some way to deter people from doing it is needed, but our current court systems would certainly not be a good choice I don't think.
---

If the person ditched the items while still in the store then they are no longer shoplifting. However, if you saw them take the items but not see them ditch them, then you are justified to stop them. Plus, you're acting like video is uncommon in stores, which it isn't. A store isn't going to stop someone if they didn't see it, video or visual. Additional note: don't tackle people even if you see them steal something. The price of the merchandise isn't worth risking yourself over.
---

wolfy42 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm

No you don't. Just have to prove intent.

Let me just quote your last paragraph there.

Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store.

And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.

See this is what really confuses me, how do you prevent people from just wandering in, eating stuff, and leaving? It can't be a big problem or they would have to have more security etc. I know dinning and dashing is a thing, and I have seen people arrested for it (although again, not exactly sure how they can really protect themselves from it), but at least in that case they have a ticket order, and plates with food that was eaten etc, as proof.

For dinning and dashing though, why wouldn't people just get up to use the restroom etc, and then leave from there, especially if they didn't finish all the food etc? I would imagine it's almost impossible to actually stop people from doing that, but then you have like 200+ people in my area standing around with signs asking for money for food etc.

So yeah, why would they stand for the whole day, begging for food, if they could literally just go into any resteraunt, order food, eat it, then leave without paying.

I for instance often just leave my money on the table and leave without waiting for someone to come (since I don't want change anyway), never once have I been asked to wait or anything.

I could probably have not paid for like 80% of the meals I have had and gotten away with it, just by not actually leaving money behind (I'm impatient and when I'm done eating I don't like sitting in front of dirty plates).

There has to be SOMETHING that prevents this from happening regularly. I mean, even if you went to jail for a night or two or something, if you g ot a super delicious steak dinner with lobster/shrimp etc out of it....I could see alot of homeless people being down for that.

There is. You get banned from the establishment and they will no longer serve you, plus they will probably call the police to have you arrested for your prior crime. Unless you literally never stay very long in one place and always go to a different restaurant each time you eat you will run out of places to dine and dash from pretty quick.
---

"There is. You get banned from the establishment and they will no longer serve you, plus they will probably call the police to have you arrested for your prior crime. Unless you literally never stay very long in one place and always go to a different restaurant each time you eat you will run out of places to dine and dash from pretty quick."

That is the thing, even in smaller suburbs I have lived in, there are over 50 places to eat, and honestly you like need to travel a few blocks usually to find more. You could rotate through towns and never eat at the same place twice in a year easily, but remain within 20-30 miles of your starting point.

Even if you did go back in say a month or two, your chances of having the same server etc, or being remembered (especially if you just left and there was no confrontation) would be really small (and that is saying the same employees are even there still).

This has always kinda confused me. I have seen people arrested for this before, but, thinking back on it, I think they WANTED to be arrested (as in they told the waitress they could not pay and waited for the cops).

Last time I saw this was like 10+ years ago in Alameda CA, at a dinner, and the guy just told them he couldn't pay and waited for the cops. I think he wanted somewhere warm to spend the night. It was sad actually.

Point is, I don't see how these companies are preventing homeless people from doing this all the time. It's not like they have anything to loose, and not all of them won't do it out of morals/principles etc (especially if they are really hungry).

As far as cameras, I know alot of convienence stores have them, but I worked at a safeway (admittedly 20 years ago or so), and they did not have cameras covering the isles etc. Someone could easily have just gone in, eaten a bunch of food, and then left. That was before they had all the sandwich/oriental/hot food bars etc even (which is even easier for you to get away with because alot of people pay for them right there, and then eat at the tables nearby). Heck now most safeways have a starbucks with tables as well, you could get the hot food from the safeway counter, travel over to the starbucks area and eat it, and then leave and nobody would know you never paid.

I'm sure if it happened a ton, eventually the loss of merchandise would be discovered and prevention methods would be taken (for isntance you have to pay for the hot food at the bar, before it is given to you). Those are not currently in effect though, which makes me wonder....why are the homeless not doing things like this? It would be great if it was because they think it is wrong etc, but I don't believe that.
---

Thats what people call a first night stand.

He shoulda kicked her thieving ass out WELL before this. Now she can get cozy with her new cellmates.
---

wolfy42 posted...

"There is. You get banned from the establishment and they will no longer serve you, plus they will probably call the police to have you arrested for your prior crime. Unless you literally never stay very long in one place and always go to a different restaurant each time you eat you will run out of places to dine and dash from pretty quick."

That is the thing, even in smaller suburbs I have lived in, there are over 50 places to eat, and honestly you like need to travel a few blocks usually to find more. You could rotate through towns and never eat at the same place twice in a year easily, but remain within 20-30 miles of your starting point.

Even if you did go back in say a month or two, your chances of having the same server etc, or being remembered (especially if you just left and there was no confrontation) would be really small (and that is saying the same employees are even there still).

This has always kinda confused me. I have seen people arrested for this before, but, thinking back on it, I think they WANTED to be arrested (as in they told the waitress they could not pay and waited for the cops).

Last time I saw this was like 10+ years ago in Alameda CA, at a dinner, and the guy just told them he couldn't pay and waited for the cops. I think he wanted somewhere warm to spend the night. It was sad actually.

Point is, I don't see how these companies are preventing homeless people from doing this all the time. It's not like they have anything to loose, and not all of them won't do it out of morals/principles etc (especially if they are really hungry).

As far as cameras, I know alot of convienence stores have them, but I worked at a safeway (admittedly 20 years ago or so), and they did not have cameras covering the isles etc. Someone could easily have just gone in, eaten a bunch of food, and then left. That was before they had all the sandwich/oriental/hot food bars etc even (which is even easier for you to get away with because alot of people pay for them right there, and then eat at the tables nearby). Heck now most safeways have a starbucks with tables as well, you could get the hot food from the safeway counter, travel over to the starbucks area and eat it, and then leave and nobody would know you never paid.

I'm sure if it happened a ton, eventually the loss of merchandise would be discovered and prevention methods would be taken (for isntance you have to pay for the hot food at the bar, before it is given to you). Those are not currently in effect though, which makes me wonder....why are the homeless not doing things like this? It would be great if it was because they think it is wrong etc, but I don't believe that.

You are oversimplifying too much. I work at Union Station where we see 70,000+ people every day and all of the stores see someone new try and shoplift from them just about every hour and we still know who the regulars are. Even some of our crooks/thieves/scum will be gone for up to a year and when they come back all someone says is "Hey George, remember when you tried to rob from us last year? Get out."

On top of that, California decriminalized shoplifting so you can't be arrested for it anymore unless you steal more than $90.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm

No you don't. Just have to prove intent.

That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.

aDirtyShisno posted...

"Hey George, remember when you tried to rob from us last year? Get out."

Pretty sure you'd call the cops if somebody robbed you. That would mean they used force.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.

Yeah they were lying about it. No state would ever claim that bullshit unless the cops were just being lazy.

Cops don't like getting involved in anything. Some guy hit my brother's car in a parking lot, got it on security and everything, my brother calls the cops and they were like, "Nope, private property, bro, sorry!"

But you know if you self-helped by slashing that mofo's tires when you caught up with him they'd totally get involved.

XlaxJynx007 posted...

You can't be charged with false arrest if your actions can be justified. It can be difficult to prove theft prior to exiting, yes, but it's possible to do so. Back when I was a police officer, one of the first people I arrested was a shoplifter at Target and we arrested them in the store. He was about to leave and that's when we stopped him, hence proof of intent.

Back when I worked retail, one of my old managers used to work in Bridgeport. The cops there handled shoplifting cases a bit differently. Instead of arresting the guys, they would take them out back and throw them down a staircase then warn them not to come back or they'd get worse. While part of me was horrified by those kinds of abuse, I imagine that's far easier and cheaper for the justice system.

wolfy42 posted...

See this is what really confuses me, how do you prevent people from just wandering in, eating stuff, and leaving? It can't be a big problem or they would have to have more security etc. I know dinning and dashing is a thing, and I have seen people arrested for it (although again, not exactly sure how they can really protect themselves from it), but at least in that case they have a ticket order, and plates with food that was eaten etc, as proof.

Yeah, that's always been a semi-gray area. I've never liked opening anything before buying it for that reason.
---

Revelation34 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Zeus posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...

If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.

No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm

No you don't. Just have to prove intent.

That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.

aDirtyShisno posted...

"Hey George, remember when you tried to rob from us last year? Get out."

Pretty sure you'd call the cops if somebody robbed you. That would mean they used force.

It's Union Station. We call the cops if someone is sitting on the floor. They're always on site.
---

mrduckbear posted...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/08/0497C226000003E8-0-image-a-1_1496302803557.jpg

hot
---

Revelation34 posted...

That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.

Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.
---

Wouldve picked her up and hurled her out of the house like Dr Phil did Jazz

Zeus posted...

Revelation34 posted...

That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.

Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.

In this you are correct. While the commen man cannot legally detain someone unless they are making a citizen's arrest 'merchants' and their employees have special permissions to detain those persons they believe are shoplifting from their establishments. They cannot however exercise other procedures such as search and seizure of evidence unless the evidence is in plain view and is property of the establishment.
---

Zeus posted...

Revelation34 posted...

That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.

Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.

Detain, not stop. Those are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Revelation34 posted...

That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.

Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.

Detain, not stop. Those are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.

Except not in this context. Detaining and stopping have the same function and effect in this example. Further, if you're going to make a claim that it's unlawful for them to do so despite a legal blog already okaying it, I would expect you to at least present a source.
---

Zeus posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Revelation34 posted...

That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.

Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.

Detain, not stop. Those are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.

Except not in this context. Detaining and stopping have the same function and effect in this example. Further, if you're going to make a claim that it's unlawful for them to do so despite a legal blog already okaying it, I would expect you to at least present a source.

Detaining means holding a person such as taking them to a back room until cops get there.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Revelation34 posted...

That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.

Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.

Detain, not stop. Those are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.

Except not in this context. Detaining and stopping have the same function and effect in this example. Further, if you're going to make a claim that it's unlawful for them to do so despite a legal blog already okaying it, I would expect you to at least present a source.

Detaining means holding a person such as taking them to a back room until cops get there.

No, it actually doesn't. You can detain somebody simply by standing in their way and refuse to let them pass. The act of detention is literally a matter of preventing somebody from leaving. You don't need to physically touch the person to detain them, you need to transfer them to another room, you just need to stop them from leaving.

More importantly, when an employee asks somebody to come with them to the back room, that's entirely a voluntary action. If they lay hands on them and drag them there, that could constitute assault depending on the circumstances. However, if somebody refuses to walk in back, a manager can STILL just stand in their way and stop them from moving without touching them. And private citizens can legally detain individuals who they witness committing a crime.

For added reference, when a cop stops you in a street to ask you questions, that's a form of detention. If you can't leave, you are being detained (assuming you haven't been arrested, since an arrest has a very specific definition).
---