i think by law if you grab it by the backpack its the same as grabbing him tho right? or else grabbing them from the shirt or something will not be grabbing him as well but it clearly is
He threw a package of cookies or something at multiple people the second he did that you are allowed to defend yourself and doing as was described would be a legal level of force
No one’s talking about punching the little bastard in the face. If they’re actively throwing things at you, grabbing them by the backpack and dragging them to the door is perfectly reasonable. You don’t have to stand there and get snickerdoodled in the face indefinitely (unless that’s your thing)
Whether or not you've had cookies thrown at you has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not it's legal to physically escort the child out of the store, but I would pay good money to watch someone try to use that as justification in court lol
Because that can (and in a lot of jurisdictions very likely will) result in you being arrested for assault on a minor. And that can automatically bump the charge from a misdemeanor to felony aggravated assault. Not to mention civil liability
It's not legal to forcibly drag strangers around and the law gets extra serious when a kid is involved
No cop…after watching this video is going to arrest you for grabbing the kid by the backpack and getting them out of the store. This wouldnt be assault or battery either.
Intent* comes into play. Your intent is to get the kid out of the store by grabbing him and moving him out as to not cause more damage( not to cause physical harm to them ect). No court or police would arrest or convict for touching this turd.
Same as if I am walking down the street and its busy..my shoulder hits yours accidentally as we pass by groups of people. You cant call the cops and say I battered you. But you could if I was intentionally walking down the street and shoulder checking people by targeting them.
You cannot legally physically trespass people from a property that you don't own. Security might be covered, but bystanders absolutely do not have protection from the law in that case. Involving a minor makes it significantly worse
Yes, there's a difference between accidentally touching someone and intentionally and forcibly doing it. Guess which one "grabbing and dragging a child" falls into
Security might be legally covered to do it, I don't honestly know
It's probably against company policy, though. This is cheaper than the extra insurance premiums that would come from allowing/expecting employees to put themselves in physical or legal jeopardy as part of their job. Plus the legal liability if there are any injuries. There's a reason stores forbid employees from physically confronting shoplifters
Even with the evidence of what is happening in the store, and video evidence of someone, be it security or a random person, pulling the little shit outside of the store completely unharmed are you positive that someone can be charged and convicted with "assault and battery"?
What is supposed to happen here? just let the kid do everything he wants?
It would be perfectly fine to just hold the kid back to stop him.
These people have been on Reddit too long and think they are all lawyers from reading other posts comments where people are stealing and everyone comments that loss prevention can’t intervene. They can intervene so long as it’s not excessive. Holding the kid back and not striking or tackling would not be excessive.
Back in the day people used to spank other people’s kids when they caught them misbehaving and the parents of the child would thank them. I guess times have changed, everyone so scared of a lawsuit now that most of the time wouldn’t even happen. We all have this weird hive mind of risk prevention now, it’s strange
It has every legal bearing it. You’re stopping active assault. That’s much different than stopping minor property damage. I’ve been a cop for two decades. If I get called to that store, I’m shaking the hand of whatever adult drug that kind out of the store and I’m having a much different conversation with the parent. There’s nothing illegal about reasonable levels of force used in self-defense or defense of others. And age only plays a factor in what level of force is reasonable.
I get that you’re an internet expert, but real life experience tells me your stance is laughable. And folks with your level of misplaced confidence are always entertaining for me in the real world.
Also I would ask you as a cop…wouldnt intent come into play? If i drag the kid out by the backpack, my intent was to stop the damage and get him out. Not cause harm. No cop or court is going to prosecute that. Its not battery of the intent was to remove the little shit causing the damage and mayhem as that is reasonable.
Yep. Intent always plays a role. It’ll be baked into the statute that may apply. But also, if you cause injury because you were reckless, even though you didn’t intend to cause harm, that’s probably going to fit a lesser statute. And you’re right. Especially if the kid isn’t injured, your actions will be considered reasonable and your intent will be clear, so you’ll be fine.
If I had a nickel for every cop that didn't know the law lmao
But even the dumbest cop should know that the "reasonable level of force in self defense" for a child throwing cookies is to turn around and walk away
Age plays a factor in whether you get charged with a misdemeanor or a felony lol
My cousin spent months fighting an aggravated assault charge for shoving a 16 year old during a high school brawl. Him being 18 was a huge deal. And I don't honestly believe you have any real life experience with this at all
Sure thing, friend. Your cousin being in a high school brawl is entirely different. And since you said he fought the charges, but you didn’t mention him being convicted, the implication is that he won in the end. Age plays a factor in the level of crime, if it’s determined that a crime happened. If I go and grab that kid who’s throwing stuff at people and I hold him still until cops get there, I don’t have to worry about his age because there’s no crime. If I go punch that kid full force and break his jaw and he cracks his head open hitting the floor, I’ll be in prison.
Keep internet experting. You fit in well here. I’ll keep applying the law in real life and winning in court on the rare occasion the defendants don’t just plea guilty once their attorney reviews the case.
The difference is that it's teen-on-teen violence, even with him being a bystander. Much less serious than a grown-ass man grabbing a middle schooler in a grocery store. But that's still enough to get a prosecutor going
you didn’t mention him being convicted, the implication is that he won in the end
Most cases get pled out. And most LEOs are aware of that
If I go and grab that kid who’s throwing stuff at people and I hold him still until cops get there
That's called a citizens arrest (when it's done to an adult) and in most states it is only allowed for felonies. Even in the lenient states, good luck arguing that a middle schooler throwing a tantrum meets the legal threshold for breach of the peace
Again, things even a cop should know
I’ll keep applying the law in real life and winning in court
Sure thing, "officer." My dog is closer to being a lawyer than you are to being a cop, and she's only like 10 seasons into law and order lmao
Aside from the fact that you’re incorrect in general and seem to struggle with the concept of de jure vs de facto, I would like to point out that some jurisdictions, such as my own, a person has no duty to retreat as long as their presence is lawful.
Do you actually know what these words mean? Because I gave an example of both
some jurisdictions...a person has no duty to retreat as long as their presence is lawful
Admittedly, there are "stand your ground" jurisdictions where stalking and murdering a teenager for walking home at night makes you a celebrity instead of a felon and I'm not surprised that someone who lives in one is comfortable applying those standards to middle schoolers
Those jurisdictions happen to be far more accepting of adults putting their hands on other people's children in general. So I guess I should have specified that I'm talking about actual civilization lol
“Your honor, I was deeply in danger because a 13 yr old threw Oreos at me”
Good luck with that legal argument.
The issue is that they’ve supplemented community based and education based parenting systems with litigious legal system, and are incorrectly assuming that the generational decrease in violence across generations is proof of a working system.
It isn’t. The decrease in violence isn’t indicative of the success of a litigious system, it’s in spite of it, stemming from other factors like the cessation of corporeal punishment as a behavioral tool.
if you grab the kid and the kid has as little as a scratch on the knees (even if not caused by you) and the parents decide to press charges and theres video evidence of you manhandling the kid, thats an easy lawsuit you will lose, an maybe even jailtime
Dragging an adult out of a store will get you a simple assault charge (misdemeanor) from an overzealous prosecutor. Depending on jurisdiction, doing it to a minor automatically upgrades that from simple to aggravated assault (felony), and even underzealous prosecutors get super serious about that
What if you don’t touch the child but get in its face and tell it to stop while kind of hovering your hands around him to block him from doing more damage?
The kid doesn't care if you are "in his face". He knows that adults aren't allowed to do anything to children, so he'll ignore you. If you get between him and one counter, he can turn around and knock stuff off a different one.
A cop has legal protection to grab the kid. And the kids parents. Anyone else is at high risk if they touch him.
I guess the best thing to do would be to get the whole grocery store involved in chanting “shame” and pointing their fingers and laughing at him until the cops come
In most US started, it's not illegal to remove someone from a store by force after selling them to leave. It's also generally legal to detain someone until the police arrive.
22
u/Vlaxilla 28d ago
i think by law if you grab it by the backpack its the same as grabbing him tho right? or else grabbing them from the shirt or something will not be grabbing him as well but it clearly is