Law School Discussion

College Football

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #860 on: November 16, 2005, 10:34:06 AM »
They did not detain her.  They merely asked her to come back into the store until they assessed the situation.  At no time did the security guard or other personnel physically detain her.  She was free to leave at any time.  Her rights were not violated in any way. 

phyiscal detention isnt required for false imprisonment, it is enough if she felt that she could not leave

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #861 on: November 16, 2005, 10:36:19 AM »
I know more about false imprisonment than I ever wanted to know since we had to write our final memo on it :)

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #862 on: November 16, 2005, 10:45:35 AM »
You would need some kind of probable cause, wouldnt you?

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #863 on: November 16, 2005, 10:47:19 AM »
You would need some kind of probable cause, wouldnt you?

sure, I cant remember the whole story of what happened with her, but didnt she come out with less items than she went in with or something?

Re: College Football
« Reply #864 on: November 16, 2005, 10:53:56 AM »
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

  • ****
  • 1986
  • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #865 on: November 16, 2005, 10:55:14 AM »
You would need some kind of probable cause, wouldnt you?

sure, I cant remember the whole story of what happened with her, but didnt she come out with less items than she went in with or something?

i left the item in the dressing room.  they didn't check it before coming after me.

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #866 on: November 16, 2005, 10:57:44 AM »
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

You would need some kind of probable cause, wouldnt you?

sure, I cant remember the whole story of what happened with her, but didnt she come out with less items than she went in with or something?

i left the item in the dressing room.  they didn't check it before coming after me.


they probably should have checked the changing room first...they'd still prolly be safe though...

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #867 on: November 16, 2005, 10:59:25 AM »
talk about threads veering WAYYY off topic :)

LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

  • ****
  • 1986
  • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #868 on: November 16, 2005, 11:01:11 AM »
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #869 on: November 16, 2005, 11:03:55 AM »
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie