Jinn

So I just watched a very intense video on, of all places, eBaumsworld.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/robbery.html

For those of you with dial-up, etc.. the video is taken from an jewelry store surveillance camera in the east end of London. It shows a man entering the store, messing around for a little while, and then trying to run off with the jewelry. However, the owner has locked the door and the (potential) thief is unable to escape. The next few minutes is filled with tons of screaming and violence as the would-be thief attempts to leave the store. However, this video raised a TON of questions for me, and I'm not really sure how I feel about it anymore. I strongly urge you to watch the video, as it adds a huge sense of.. WTF?!? to the situation.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/robbery.html

When I first watched the video, I became incredibly angry watching this obviously strong colored man beating on what appeared to be old owners (50+ year old men and women) and trying to gouge their eyes out-- even threatening to kill them if they didn't unlock the door. I got so irate that I felt if I were in a situation like that, even being a relatively strict pacifist, I would not have hesitated to blundgeon the man with my fists, feet, blunt objects, point objects or whatever I could get my hands on until I rendered them unconcious or even dead, if necessary. The video seems so incredibly violent that I think it gets beyond a point of "solving with words."

HOWEVER, after further thinking about why I was so angry and why my "Protector" instinct had kicked in, I realized that these owners almost brought this violence upon themselves. Not only did they almost bait the burglar in, by showing him more and more jewelry after they knew his intentions (the gloves, hello?!?!?) Its as if they were TRYING to get him to steal. Furthermore, they locked the door with the jeweler inside. Both of these actions seem to be vigilante justice, and I cannot approve. I feel especially sorry for the other customer who tried to escape but was unable to because the owner had locked him in. Is there no laws in England about unlawfully detaining someone? He could have potentially put that other customer into a very violent confrontation.

Even more, late into the video you see that the owner is able to lock both the inside and outside doors remotely. Why didn't he initially lock the burglar in that little area, rather than locking him INSIDE? It seems silly, and again, vigalante. Police officers are there for a reason -- even if they didn't arrive on time, it hardly feels like your duty to enforce that type of justice.

And at the end of the video, the narrator mentions that the thief has been "detained indefinitely" by her Majesty or something similar -- do they also not have a fair and speedy trial clause in the UK? His crime is heinous and the video shows it, but detained "indefinitely" ? And finally -- his defense is criminal insanity. Do you believe this is a legitimate defense? Ever?

Let me know what you guys think, because I can't -- yet-- make up my mind.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

Robber - It's obviously wrong to steal and beat on the elderly.
Storeowners - morons. Let's lock in the theif.
The theif recieves 97% of the fault here.

Kostya

This video was fairly unsettling. I saw a far far worse one on Ebaums however, where a woman accused of 'ratting out' some people in her neighbourhood is surrounded in a car, which a violent mob proceeds to wreck, pull her out by her hair and administer a brutal beating to a woman who is under 100lbs and makes not a violent gesture throughout. It made quite sick.

Sho Nuff

It is not vigilante justice to protect your business. It may be ill advised to put yourself in over you head and the other customer may have legal recourse if harmed, but if my business is threatened I will fight to protect it as well. Law Enforcement is limited and will most likely not respond in time.

For the, the bigger moral quuestion is what if the shopkeepers had shot him.

__________________
I know Nietzsche doesnt rhyme with peachy, but you sound like a pretentious prick when you correct me.

5757

I am so damn sick of not being able to watch these videos. Oh lordy. Help me.

JinnKai-? what can i do?

__________________
Hey! Wait! I've got a new complaint, Forever in debt to ((your)) priceless advice. - Nirvana

Carno

He was wrong.
They were stupid.

Certainly not vigilante justice though. Do you even know what that is?

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Psycho Dad

I've seen similar videos on TV where the guy was locked in but the shopkeeper was protected by an unbreakable glass. This video however... Backing an animal in a corner and then caging yourself with him doesn't make the best of sense. And while it is a boneheaded attempt at a solution, it is far from vigilante justice.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

n0nsensical

To me, there is absolutely no question here. 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. I do also believe the law would be entirely on their side (although the presence of the other customer might complicate things). Claiming that they encouraged him to steal by showing him jewelry and that they encouraged him to beat them by locking him in seems a lot like claiming someone deserved to be raped becuase of the way she was dressed, and neither argument is going to fly with me. Sure, they could have avoided the trouble, but I feel they should be under no obligation to do so and have no responsibility for someone else's behavior. I'm sure people can imagine what I think of the insanity defense.

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

Sho Nuff

Can someone clarify the laws on killing in defense of property when the perpetrator is attempting to flee? Id be curious to see how legally protected the shopowners would be putting a slug in a caged perp.

__________________
I know Nietzsche doesnt rhyme with peachy, but you sound like a pretentious prick when you correct me.

stevie667

Over here thats murder.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Sho Nuff

Are you across the pond?

__________________
I know Nietzsche doesnt rhyme with peachy, but you sound like a pretentious prick when you correct me.

MooseMan3000

"Perpetrator is attempting to flee" doesn't exactly describe this situation. Had he run out on the street, then someone had followed him with a shotgun and gunned him down, they'd be in jail. Murder and reckless endangerment.

In this instance, however, where the guy was locked in and trying to kill them, someone would have been perfectly justified in killing him right back.

Sho Nuff

He was attempting to leave the store when they locked him in meaning that he was fleeing before they stopped him. In that case the cause the violent confrontation in a non-violent sntach and grab. If they respond with lethal force vs an unarmed suspect in a situation they caused I dont know if the law stands behind them.

__________________
I know Nietzsche doesnt rhyme with peachy, but you sound like a pretentious prick when you correct me.

stevie667

Yup, in merry ol' England.

We had a case where some theives broke into someones farm, and the farmer shot at the both, killing one, as they ran away.
He was initially convicted of murder, but that sentance was later reduced to manslaughter.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

n0nsensical

In my opinion, the point at which he attacks them is the point at which he can no longer be considered to be fleeing. Had he not attacked them, then sure, the store owners would have had no right to respond with violence. The store owners locking him in is no excuse for him to attack them as they were perfectly justified in doing so.

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

Jinn

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.

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:

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.

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.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Carno

lmfao! Are you kidding me dude??

What if the guy had said he was sorry and went back to the owners and handed them the jewels? You really think the cops would have let him go because he wasn't out of the store yet?? Lots of convenience stores have a locking feature on their doors in order to trap would be thieves inside the store. The only thing different in this case is the stupidity of the store owners for not having a protective barrier between them and the enraged thief.

Your definition of vigilante justice was contradicted by the very source you quoted. They did not "mete out justice" to the thief. They trapped him so that he could be detained by law enforcement and then tried in the legal system. Where a JUDGE would "mete out justice." Is that so hard to understand?

Here's an example of vigilante justice to help you understand if you still don't get it:

Man beats wife.
Brother of woman shoots husband in the face.

He took the law into his own hands and sentenced the husband to death. The robbery case would be like the brother walking in on the husband beating his wife and the brother tying the husband up and calling the cops. They were only facilitating the law.

Man am I glad you're not a lawyer or a judge.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Jinn

...and im glad you're not an english teacher. I'm sorry, but your limited definition of "vigilante justice" is wrong. If he set the jewels back on the counter, what crime has he committed? He picked up jewelry, walked two steps to the left, and came back to the counter.

Locking a presumed criminal inside a building is ILLEGAL - unless they're commiting a felony. I had two weeks of training as a security guard years back, and one of the topics was unlawful arrest/detain. It is ILLEGAL for any citizen (and even a liscened security guard) to impede another's movement unless they've witnessed the comission of a felony. That's what POLICE are for. Check out any law-book for your state if you're legitimately interested and not just countering everything I say. Look up "citizen's arrest" or "lawful arrest."

And YES, it's vigilante justice. Just because you can come up with one example does not make it mutually exclusive to the other.

He took the law into his own hands and "sentenced" the jewel thief to imprisonment. He doesn't have any legal right to do so.

EDIT: Just did my own research, and it appears that in the UK under the PCEA of 1984 a citizen can make a "private person's arrest" for any arrestable offense, of which burglary is included. So, apparently this was legal in the UK (the source video) -- but certainly not in the United States of America.

EDIT x 2: Apparently legal in Canada, as well. So I'll deign that point to you, Carn. However, none of the 50 states (I just looked) allows citizen's arrest for anything less than a felony -- and I personally think that is a good thing. DAMNED BRITS AND CANUCKS!!!

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

highthief

Agree 100%. "Vigilante justice" - this doesn't even begin to approach vigilante justice. Stop blaming the innocent (albeit a little overly brave) victims here.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Cimarron29414

Just a few thoughts:

First, we can't really compare local statutes to foreign statutes. In the US, many of the issues faced in this example fall in a variety of state, county, and even local statutes. So, no one will necessarily be correct or incorrect if we apply "our" laws to the situation. Where I live, burglary includes concealment or the attempt to flee the establishment. So, if you put a product in your pocket and the security camera guy sees you - busted. If you pick something up and are ~clearly~ attempting to leave the premises - busted. Finally, burglary can reach the level of a felony if the value of the property exceeds a certain amount. Since we don't know the value of the property in question, we can't say whether it was a felony or not.

In my community, it is legal for you to detain a person who has committed a crime. However, you open yourself up to a civil lawsuit if that person feels their civil rights were violated, so you might have to defend your actions in court. However, the perp still has to find a jury of peers that will give him money for stealing from you, which probably won't happen.

I don't want to debate the moral or ethical aspects of detainment. I will just leave it at "I disagree with you."

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

analog

Over here, in the US, using the "US shopkeeper has a shotgun" scenario, the guy would be on the floor before he thought about trying to leave. The second he tried some shit, he'd have been blasted out of his boots.

If the reaction isn't that fast, the "trying to escape" doesn't really matter, because here in the US we don't do the "lock the thief inside" doors/walls/etc. thing. So, either they get a shotgun blast to the chest, or they successfully leave the store. Someone shot trying to leave is far less common, since they're not trapped in with you, and don't create the odd situation you have over there with "holding" a person inside, making it impossible to leave.

Either way, shooting a person in the back as they try to leave the scene is at least manslaughter, unless there are really compelling extenuating circustances.

And "detaining until the cops show up in (hopefully) a few minutes" is totally different from the principle of "detaining indefinitely", which someone objected to. I don't know about merry old England, as you put it, but here in the states you are usually allowed to safely hold a person until the police show up (sometimes called "citizen's arrest", and sometimes only allowed in cases of felony crimes)- but you're not guaranteed immunity. If the perp walks on the charge, you can be sued for all kinds of things relating to "holding against their will". Note that "felony crimes" can include robbery if over a certain dollar amount or, in some states, if the crime of burglary is committed using a deadly weapon (gun).

In some cases, depending on the offense, you can still lose a civil suit of holding someone against their will, even if they were guilty of the crime you were holding them for. It's up to the judge (and/or jury) to decide whether your actions taken were appropriate. It's a check and balance specifically because we DON'T want vigilante justice, where anyone can hold anyone for any reason just because they "did something wrong". That's up to the law enforcement officers.

Anecdote about that point:

A few years back, in my area here, there was an incident which paints this picture perfectly. Guy 1 flips out on Guy 2, starts hitting him, Guy 2 hits the ground after only a few hits, obviously just knocked out from the force (not like he's dead). They were both drunk. There is a small crowd and Guy 1 goes to leave, fearing arrest or whatever. Random Guy 3 intervenes and- without actually touching Guy 1 other than using his arms to block his path- sort of "holds" him to a certain area, not letting him leave. After a minute, Other Random Guy 4 walks over, and physically restrains Guy 1.

When all was said and done, Guy 3 had no problems because he held Guy 1 appropriately. Despite Guy 1, the attacker, having been convicted of simple battery- he pressed charges on Guy 4, the one who physically held him, and won. Most times, it's all in how much force is needed to quell a situation safely and how much you end up using. He didn't need to bear-hug the guy to a wall.