Couple things -- I'm not DEFENDING the perpetrator's actions, but I certainly think that any civil damages would have to be associated to the store owners' behaviors as well.
Quote:
He was wrong.
They were stupid.
Certainly not vigilante justice though. Do you even know what that is?
|
Please clarify your point, because this is
precisely vigilante justice in my book. Since the perpetrator never actually left the store with the goods, he hadn't stolen anything. He could easily defend walking around in the store with the goods. There's a reason that retail stores can't stop you until you LEAVE the store (in most jurisidictions). Until then, you haven't stolen
anything!
Furthermore, he was attempting to subdue/detain/harm the perpetrator, which is what LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS are for. Since you obviously think you know what vigilante means more than I do...
Wikipedia:
Quote:
|
In modern Western society, the term is frequently applied to those citizens who "take the law into their own hands," meting out homebrew justice when they perceive that the actions of established authorities are insufficient.
|
They acted in this manner because they thought the police wouldn't get there in time, and had to lock the (percieved) criminal inside. That's vigilante justice.
Quote:
|
The owners are 100% in the right to have done what they did, and furthermore, had this been the U.S. and had they had a shotgun, they would have been 100% in the right to put this guy on the receiving end of it.
|
Negative. In a few states where the "Make My Day" laws exist, you are allowed to use lethal force to defnd your property (in mose cases, your house). However, MOST jurisdictions require that you've only responded with equal or lesser force to an eminemt threat. That's why if someone comes at you with their fists, and you stab them with a knife -- you're breaking the necessary force laws. Shooting an unarmed perpetrator? I think not.
Again -- not defending the perpetrator's actions, but does no one else think the store owners were ridiculous, as well?
I look at it this way:
IF the owners had invoked their "refuse the right to serve any customer at any time" clause, would this perpetrator even had a chance to get his hands on goods? This whole situation would have been avoided.
IF the owners had not locked the perpetrator inside, the police could very-well have still caught him without him destroying their store and attacking them.
IF the owners had simply locked the perpetrator in the second set of doors, they would have saved themselves a lot of hassle.
^^ they failed to take any of the common-sense legal ways to avoid this situation.