MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Vinnie chase the robbers?

THFC

Can't see how money has anything to do with this.
(even though this is a money saving website)

You make your decision based on the situation and principles.

Okay you may get into trouble you may not, assess it (dont be a hero, i agree if it's too risky) Your employer may not appreciate it or reward it but do it for YOURSELF not them. You may assess it wrong too.

Shame the Law and the courts don't help.

But If we all let criminals petty thieves get away with thinking they can do what they want, were doomed. Will the next generation let further levels of crime go a step further, also ignoring or turning a blind eye.

Feel this society needs to be harsher and bring stiffer penalties on people.

Unfortunately prisons are under funded and criminals have it easy - Too many do-gooders and human rights.

Forget the rights of the criminal, what about the victims.

People are rightly scared - Somebody pulls a knife, syringe etc your life is on the line - but surely these people should be caught and massive sentences handed out, it's not acceptable, crack down hard.

This country is soft, including the pampered MP's

hollydays

I think men who are "big and hard looking" often get a rough deal,because they are expected to be able to deal with this type of situation. Then the small and not so hard looking get let off the hook.

Some people really like the excitement of dealing with stuff like this,and let them do it if they want. But they should make sure they have had some training on the law and restraint.Some others find it too much to cope with,and get stressed about repercussions.
In this type of situation,its highly likely the thief is experienced,( this type of theft called "bulk theft" or "bulking" is done by people who are very desperate (drugs) and/or very practiced (quick in and out),a drug user,and may not be working alone. If they are desperate,they most likely will be desperate Not to be arrested,and will fight dirty.Therefore,don't run down an alley,and don't ever chase someone on your own.Saying that,use of weapons is not usually commonplace.
A department store should be employing a uniformed guard to deter thieves.
Be prepared if he pleads not guilty you may have to appear in court.

One of the posts above,who worked in retail,talked a lot of sense-john mc-but he said they searched shoplifters.

NO ONE,apart from a Police Officer ever has the right to do this,unless with the shoplifters permission-( and only AFTER arrest)its a BIG no no.And doing it in a public place causes even more issues.Therefore I say don't help unless you know exactly what you are doing.
The department store shouldl have a monitor on the door,and the offence can be reported to the Police,( keep a record of the crime number,in case you spot him again)who will probably identify him by the camera evidence and arrest him later.The department store should have a radio linked to Police and retailers-use it.

hollydays

johnmc wrote: »

It's nothing to do with his job description or what he gets paid.

I've been here MANY times before and I can assure you all that if he chases and detains this individual he WILL be done for assault and wrongful arrest.

His rights as a citizen are that he can arrest only if he KNOWS an arrestible offence has been committed and that this person committed it.

Based on the evidence provided only his boss knows this. He can accompany his boss and assist him. He cannot "go it alone".
d get another job or join a decent Union.

Not quite correct. Its usually imperative that ONLY the person who sees the alleged thief picked up the goods should stop them.He would only be done for assault if the thief alleges assault,or there are no stolen goods on him when he has been stopped plus no camera evidence.Its not automatic every time,but I get the gist.

Also,in a case where it is blatantly obvious he is running out with an armful of your companys stock-the law allows for this-see b)

The law says "Any person may arrest without warrant
a)anyone who is in the act of committing an arrestable offence
b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing such an offence

This is from pace-i don't believe it has changed.

Reasonable grounds has to be very positivly obvious,not just a half-baked idea the person might have stolen goods-and "reasonable grounds" is what many people misunderstand the definition of-beware- so its best forgotten apart from these incidents where people run out.