Dave and Busters behavior
Jul 8, 2008 | 2:46 pm
#16
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ewr,swf,fll
Posts: 835
This sounds so wrong - IANAL and have no basis but there is no way I'd assist you here and all I see happening is you being charged with assault. As I see your example, I'd say no and not go anywhere but towards the door. You attempt to in any way touch me to stop that progress and delay in contacting the police, as well? I do believe I get a little settlement out of that encounter .... I don't recommend you following your own advice unless you want to be on the wrong end of the courtroom. You would certainly be found guilty of assault at a minimum for your hands and any force to my person.
Back on the topic of DiningBuzz - I really don't care for D&B's food, but don't mind a bit of time every now and again with the games.
Back on the topic of DiningBuzz - I really don't care for D&B's food, but don't mind a bit of time every now and again with the games.
Jul 8, 2008 | 11:51 pm
#18
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: DTW
Programs: DL, AA, UA
Posts: 65
But like most complex rules, your typical food service or retail employee probably hasn't been well-trained for a Code Adam. Check out this crazy thread from The Consumerist where a Wal-Mart security guard tried to "rescue" the wrong baby.
Jul 10, 2008 | 10:12 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
a half hour is hardly a substantial period of "imprisonment".
i agree the police should have been called as soon as possible to deal with the idea a child might be missing but to call the police to claim false imprisonment is just silly.
i myself would have calmly walked out the door telling management they would be free to take my plate number if they thought it necessary.
Jul 11, 2008 | 10:21 am
#21
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ewr,swf,fll
Posts: 835
i must be reading the law differently..........
Shopkeeper's Privilege
A store owner holds the common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeeper's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element -- that is, the shopkeeper may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time. This is similar to a general right in many jurisdictions of citizen's arrest of suspected criminals by the public in limited circumstances.
Rationale
This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege, a shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge.
A store owner holds the common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeeper's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element -- that is, the shopkeeper may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time. This is similar to a general right in many jurisdictions of citizen's arrest of suspected criminals by the public in limited circumstances.
Rationale
This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege, a shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge.
Jul 11, 2008 | 11:19 am
#22
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 35
Shopkeeper's Privilege
A store owner holds the common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeeper's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element -- that is, the shopkeeper may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time. This is similar to a general right in many jurisdictions of citizen's arrest of suspected criminals by the public in limited circumstances.
Rationale
This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege, a shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge.
A store owner holds the common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeeper's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element -- that is, the shopkeeper may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time. This is similar to a general right in many jurisdictions of citizen's arrest of suspected criminals by the public in limited circumstances.
Rationale
This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege, a shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge.
So you think the OP shoplifted the child then?
Jul 11, 2008 | 11:44 am
#23
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 5,018
Ate at D&B for lunch in Milpitas yesterday, and went to leave to make an appointment, and there were employees stationed at the door who wouldn't let anyone leave. "We're sorry, we are not letting anyone leave because we have a missing child."
I have my own kids, so I could relate, so I hung around for a bit. After 20 minutes (other people had been waiting an additional 10 minutes), we were all itching to get out of there. After all, how could keeping people from leaving help locate the child? Also, it had been 1/2 hour and they had not called the police. I suggested to the employee that they call the police, as D&B could not keep the crowd from leaving, but perhaps the police could.
The employee insisted that he could keep us there himself. I let him know about "false imprisonment" and other potential issues, and he called the GM. The GM tried to tell us all we couldn't leave, and someone else mentioned false imprisonment and he eventually let us leave.
I have my own kids, so I could relate, so I hung around for a bit. After 20 minutes (other people had been waiting an additional 10 minutes), we were all itching to get out of there. After all, how could keeping people from leaving help locate the child? Also, it had been 1/2 hour and they had not called the police. I suggested to the employee that they call the police, as D&B could not keep the crowd from leaving, but perhaps the police could.
The employee insisted that he could keep us there himself. I let him know about "false imprisonment" and other potential issues, and he called the GM. The GM tried to tell us all we couldn't leave, and someone else mentioned false imprisonment and he eventually let us leave.
Jul 11, 2008 | 11:47 am
#24
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: RDU
Programs: Delta PM/1MM, Hilton Diamond (for now), Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 3,448
absolutely not true...if i am a shop keeper and i suspect you pocketed a twix bar i have every legal right to take you in the back and question you before calling authorities. i do not, however, have the right to hold you for a substantial period of time without cause. only the worst ambulance chasing attorney would side with the people in the dave and buster situation. a half hour of questioning to possibly find a missing child would most definitely fall under reasonable detainment. a citizens arrest is only permitted if a felony has taken place. you cannot arrest someone for jaywalking. false imprisonment is a misdemeanor so citizens arrest does not apply.
Jul 11, 2008 | 1:24 pm
#25
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ewr,swf,fll
Posts: 835
lol. no. i was actually responding to ptravel's statement "there is no i've got a good reason exception" to the false imprisonment law. there clearly is. the shopkeepers privilege. how or if it applies to any of this is for lawyers to hack out in court as i'm sure some loser will sue. we wouldnt want to deny any money due anyone for their distress. thank god those folks stranded at the bronx zoo yesterday have already filed suit!!
Jul 11, 2008 | 5:09 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Shopkeeper's Privilege
A store owner holds the common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeeper's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element -- that is, the shopkeeper may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time. This is similar to a general right in many jurisdictions of citizen's arrest of suspected criminals by the public in limited circumstances.
Rationale
This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege, a shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge.
A store owner holds the common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeeper's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element -- that is, the shopkeeper may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time. This is similar to a general right in many jurisdictions of citizen's arrest of suspected criminals by the public in limited circumstances.
Rationale
This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege, a shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge.
Jul 11, 2008 | 5:44 pm
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: PHL (and sometimes BKK)
Programs: aa/ua gold; mar titanium. SPG till I die.
Posts: 15,649
I wouldn't take that.
They're free to verify I have no children with me and then let me go.
If I had a kid along then I could see some possible justification but if you're a single individual with no kids in tow, what benefit is there for anyone in keeping you around? I'd say none and they can see what you look like via security cameras if they somehow believe you're a "person of interest" after the fact.
Nuts
They're free to verify I have no children with me and then let me go.
If I had a kid along then I could see some possible justification but if you're a single individual with no kids in tow, what benefit is there for anyone in keeping you around? I'd say none and they can see what you look like via security cameras if they somehow believe you're a "person of interest" after the fact.
Nuts
Jul 11, 2008 | 10:37 pm
#28
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 104
In a true case of a missing or abducted child, minutes count and it is not time for amateur detective hour. I would have called the police myself to notify them of an alleged missing child and that the Dave And Busters staff were wasting time and resources detaining people who were clearly not in possession of the child. Let trained professionals deal with the situation, not a restaurant GM.
Jul 11, 2008 | 11:41 pm
#29
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Miami, FL, USA
Posts: 4,103