Calling out a shoplifter - liability on shop?

Subtle

Interesting one for ye. Scenario is that you're in a shop which you have no connection at all with and spot someone shoplifting and then going to leave the shop. If you approach this person and call them out on it, might you be leaving the shop open to having a claim made against them?

Taken to another level, if the shoplifter instead goes to pay at the till for something else and you interrupt the transaction and ask the customer if they are going to pay for whatever it was that they'd put in their bag, would the shop maybe then become more liable for your actions if carried out in the company of their staff and in front of other customers etc?

splinter65

Subtle wrote: »

Interesting one for ye. Scenario is that you're in a shop which you have no connection at all with and spot someone shoplifting and then going to leave the shop. If you approach this person and call them out on it, might you be leaving the shop open to having a claim made against them?

Taken to another level, if the shoplifter instead goes to pay at the till for something else and you interrupt the transaction and ask the customer if they are going to pay for whatever it was that they'd put in their bag, would the shop maybe then become more liable for your actions if carried out in the company of their staff and in front of other customers etc?

If you (another customer) approached me at the till and asked me if I’m going to pay for something that you saw me put in my bag then I would be persuing you for slander, not the shop.

dr.fuzzenstein

splinter65 wrote: »

If you (another customer) approached me at the till and asked me if I’m going to pay for something that you saw me put in my bag then I would be persuing you for slander, not the shop.

Especially if you did put something in your bag?
Or what if the person says it so only you can hear it?
It is of course something else if you didn't have something in your bag and that person announces it loudly so the entire shop can hear.

Subtle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Especially if you did put something in your bag?
Or what if the person says it so only you can hear it?
It is of course something else if you didn't have some tho in your bag and that person announces it loudly so the entire shop can hear.

Happened yesterday - I could still see the product in their bag and just approached them on their own. It's a bit more complicated than this in that they had shoplifted a "part" of a product and left the rest behind, so I had no doubts whatsoever. Didn't want to involve the shop as there was no security person there and they'd probably have to play it safe and just let it go.

B.A._Baracus

It just so happens I was at something yesterday and shop lifting was talked about. It's a minefield for staff.... So I'd be careful if you were another customer. Take this for example:

If in the event you witness someone purchase an item but shop lift something else. Staff are advised to be apologetic as possible when the customer leaves and say how they have been over-charged for an item. You then lead then into canteen (or suitable area) inform your manager who in turn will check cctv and ring the guards if deemed necessary.

You cannot say they put something in their bag... Even insinuate. You cannot ask them to open their bag or open their bag yourself. They can sue for defamation of character if you're wrong.

As a staff member you are actually advised to let someone just leave the store with the item if your manager is no where around. You simply inform them after and they check cctv so they will know to catch someone next time they are in the store.

The mentality is its better to let someone away with that 20 euro item, catch them again, rather than making a mistake a costing the company 5k in a claim.

Now that's how certain companies view shoplifting. So as another customer I would just keep your mouth shut. Not your job or place. I don't mean that in a rude way. Just a know yourself way.

Victor

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

You cannot say they put something in their bag... Even insinuate. You cannot ask them to open their bag or open their bag yourself. They can sue for defamation of character if you're wrong.

It's only defamation when it is communicated to a third person. If there is nobody else about, you are perfectly entitled to enquire as to their motives.

Brian Lighthouse

Like BA said.

Putting stuff in your bag, up your jumper (drawing suspicion), down your trousers (reprehensible) etc while in the store is not shoplifting, it becomes shoplifting when you exit the store after failing to purchase the items.

If you see someone putting an item into their pocket, walk around a little bit and then exit the store - are you sure they still have that item in their pocket? Did you look away for one second, lose sight of the person for three seconds?

If you do decide to inform a member of staff that you think 'xxx over there put stuff in their pocket', the staff member can only thank you really. A staff member acting on third party information is similar to a kamikaze maneuver - the information could be wrong.

Nine times out of ten the staff know who is in their shop.

Brian Lighthouse

Victor wrote: »

It's only defamation when it is communicated to a third person. If there is nobody else about, you are perfectly entitled to enquire as to their motives.

Let us know how you get on the next time you enquire about the motive of someone in a store.

splinter65

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Especially if you did put something in your bag?
Or what if the person says it so only you can hear it?
It is of course something else if you didn't have something in your bag and that person announces it loudly so the entire shop can hear.

You’d have to be pretty sure that you could prove that the thing that I had in my bag was shoplifted, or that I wasn’t about to pay for it.
What evidence would you have?

drunkmonkey

Tell the manager not the floor staff, they should have CCTV and will take it up from there. If they’ve security say it to them but a lot of shops don’t.

If the manager wanted they can make a citizens arrest after they leave the shop, lock them in the shop, restrain them using reasonable force while waiting for Garda to arrive.

Absolute minefield you need to be 100% they have stolen goods before pinning them down. Most will just go the cctv route.

coylemj

Brian Lighthouse wrote: »

If you do decide to inform a member of staff that you think 'xxx over there put stuff in their pocket', the staff member can only thank you really. A staff member acting on third party information is similar to a kamikaze maneuver - the information could be wrong.

+1 it could be a setup by the putative shoplifter and his associate, a manufactured defamation scenario. I'd imagine that 99% of staff in a store would do nothing about it. As another poster has said, in a lot of cases the staff will let it go even if they witness it themselves so acting on a tip-off from another customer is highly unlikely to happen.

ScouseMouse

I did this to a junkie in the discount shop on moore st. I asked her in front of the staff was she going to pay for all the stuff in her jacket.
She freaked, dumped it out and threatened me. She was gonna get me beaten up and steal my iphone. I pointed out I didnt have an Iphone.

Hate feckers like that.

She could try and sue me but I would be gone in a cloud of dust.

4ensic15

the occasion is one of qualified privilege if done by a shopkeeper or his staff but not in the case o0f a busybody.

Hardiman J. in McCormack v. Olsthoorn [2004] 3 I.R. 632 stated that a defendant had a legal right to protect his property by “taxing” an individual who he suspected of theft. In that case the defendant bona fide but mistakenly believed that the plaintiff had taken one of his plants. Hardiman J. went on to state at para. 22 of his judgment that he did not consider that the presence of bystanders in itself had the effect of destroying the privilege and he quoted Gatley on Libel and Slander (10th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2003) as follows:- “The law has been fairly liberal in allowing charges to be made in the presence of others.” He opined that he had no doubt that this too, is because of the hurried circumstances in which such accusations tend to be made. Hardiman J. went on to disagree with the decision in Coleman v. Keanes Limited [1946] Ir. Jur. Rep. 5 in which an accusation of theft was held not to be privileged because it was made with the desire to recover the property, instead of a desire to bring a thief to justice. In the view of Hardiman J.:-

“There is no doubt that something said with a view to bringing a thief to justice is privileged, but it is not the only heading on privilege that arises in such circumstances. Privilege exists where a legally recognised duty or interest in speaking exists: in my view the legitimate desire to recover one’s property is just as much a legitimate interest as the desire to bring a thief to justice. Very often, these desires will co-exist. Realistically, where there is a sudden theft or suspected theft, the owner or his agent will not pause to analyse his own motives in detail but will act immediately out of an instinctive and proper desire to stop a theft.”

Brian Lighthouse

@4ensic15
Are you saying something like this?

Qualified Privilege
Manager to a staff member: "Timmy the thief is in again, keep an eye on him please."

No privilege at all
Manager running after Timmy -who pilfered an item from the store - on the street: "Stop that man he's a thief!"

Correct me please - if required - I had always thought that Qualified Privilege had never been tested in an Irish Court

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sono

OP the best piece of advice I could give you and I mean this in the nicest possible way.....mind your own business.

Grab All Association

A person in a similar thread to this said this

There’s no item on the shelf worth €5-20k in any supermarket in the country. Do not confront the person accusing them of shoplifting. Let AGS deal with it and hand over the CCTV footage.

biko

Follow them outside and rob the item from them. It's not like they can claim ownership of it.








jk

doolox

Most tasks now require a high level of training and qualifications to do. As mentioned before if a person accuses another person in the wrong things can go horribly wrong for the accuser. Shopkeepers know this and act accordingly. They do not expect member of the public to act as security for them simply because most people would not have the knowledge of law and procedure etc. to act correctly and avoid a costly law suit.

As unsavoury as it may seem it is often better not to intervene.

Subtle

Sono wrote: »

OP the best piece of advice I could give you and I mean this in the nicest possible way.....mind your own business.

That's what I was figuring and did... initially. Then moral duty got the better of me and I did a turnabout etc...

Anyway, no harm done in this case - I was very tactful (it was actually quite amusing really with me approaching them with the rest of the product they had taken and asking if they wanted to buy it with the part in their handbag (slightly visible)!). Hopefully, the person got a wake-up call of sorts, although I doubt it.

Tis a crazy world though when all this PC'ness means we're better off legally just letting these things go.

4ensic15

Brian Lighthouse wrote: »

@4ensic15
Are you saying something like this?

Qualified Privilege
Manager to a staff member: "Timmy the thief is in again, keep an eye on him please."

No privilege at all
Manager running after Timmy -who pilfered an item from the store - on the street: "Stop that man he's a thief!"

Correct me please - if required - I had always thought that Qualified Privilege had never been tested in an Irish Court

Qualified privilege has been tested in Irish courts time and again. Both occasions you have described would be privileged.

dr.fuzzenstein

Subtle wrote: »

That's what I was figuring and did... initially. Then moral duty got the better of me and I did a turnabout etc...

Anyway, no harm done in this case - I was very tactful (it was actually quite amusing really with me approaching them with the rest of the product they had taken and asking if they wanted to buy it with the part in their handbag (slightly visible)!). Hopefully, the person got a wake-up call of sorts, although I doubt it.

Tis a crazy world though when all this PC'ness means we're better off legally just letting these things go.

Following some discussions in get the impression you can't defend yourself when being attacked, can't accuse someone of shoplifting, cannot remove an unwanted guest in your house and cannot touch anyone who impedes your passage without leaving yourself open to legal repercussions should that person get "injured" by your actions.
And to prove that the other person did anything wrong is very difficult.
On the other hand it seems, if you go about it the right way, you can crash a pad, shoplift, steal and impede people as much as you want and count on the full protection of the law.
This is because the state has taken all powers if defence from the people and claims a monopoly on them, but more often than not is not interested in enforcing this (when yawning "civil matter" down the phone for example)

4ensic15

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Following some discussions in get the impression you can't defend yourself when being attacked, can't accuse someone of shoplifting, cannot remove an unwanted guest in your house and cannot touch anyone who impedes your passage without leaving yourself open to legal repercussions should that person get "injured" by your actions.

You can do all of those things but only under conditions. The real issue is that the subtlety of the conditions is too much for some people.

dr.fuzzenstein

4ensic15 wrote: »

You can do all of those things but only under conditions. The real issue is that the subtlety of the conditions is too much for some people.

As soon as you touch someone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBYBHydg2m8

And when they turn up for court:

Samuel T. Cogley

4ensic15 wrote: »

the occasion is one of qualified privilege if done by a shopkeeper or his staff but not in the case o0f a busybody.

Hardiman J. in McCormack v. Olsthoorn [2004] 3 I.R. 632 stated that a defendant had a legal right to protect his property by “taxing” an individual who he suspected of theft. In that case the defendant bona fide but mistakenly believed that the plaintiff had taken one of his plants. Hardiman J. went on to state at para. 22 of his judgment that he did not consider that the presence of bystanders in itself had the effect of destroying the privilege and he quoted Gatley on Libel and Slander (10th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2003) as follows:- “The law has been fairly liberal in allowing charges to be made in the presence of others.” He opined that he had no doubt that this too, is because of the hurried circumstances in which such accusations tend to be made. Hardiman J. went on to disagree with the decision in Coleman v. Keanes Limited [1946] Ir. Jur. Rep. 5 in which an accusation of theft was held not to be privileged because it was made with the desire to recover the property, instead of a desire to bring a thief to justice. In the view of Hardiman J.:-

“There is no doubt that something said with a view to bringing a thief to justice is privileged, but it is not the only heading on privilege that arises in such circumstances. Privilege exists where a legally recognised duty or interest in speaking exists: in my view the legitimate desire to recover one’s property is just as much a legitimate interest as the desire to bring a thief to justice. Very often, these desires will co-exist. Realistically, where there is a sudden theft or suspected theft, the owner or his agent will not pause to analyse his own motives in detail but will act immediately out of an instinctive and proper desire to stop a theft.”

Hardiman's Judgement seems to have been largely ignored IMO. At least in the Circuit Court which seem to award damages for defamation to these shop lifting scams as a matter of course.

Sam Quentin

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

It just so happens I was at something yesterday and shop lifting was talked about. It's a minefield for staff.... So I'd be careful if you were another customer. Take this for example:

If in the event you witness someone purchase an item but shop lift something else. Staff are advised to be apologetic as possible when the customer leaves and say how they have been over-charged for an item. You then lead then into canteen (or suitable area) inform your manager who in turn will check cctv and ring the guards if deemed necessary.

You cannot say they put something in their bag... Even insinuate. You cannot ask them to open their bag or open their bag yourself. They can sue for defamation of character if you're wrong.


As a staff member you are actually advised to let someone just leave the store with the item if your manager is no where around. You simply inform them after and they check cctv so they will know to catch someone next time they are in the store.

The mentality is its better to let someone away with that 20 euro item, catch them again, rather than making a mistake a costing the company 5k in a claim.

Now that's how certain companies view shoplifting. So as another customer I would just keep your mouth shut. Not your job or place. I don't mean that in a rude way. Just a know yourself way.

Or you can walk towards them and as you approach perform a Muay thai round house kick striking full force just below his nostrils.. Putting him in a death like trance.. Hence retrieving what belongs to you, continue with your day in the knowledge that you did the right thing with no fear of being sued....
NOW THAT'S THE WAY LIFE SHOULD BE. THE END

Mod
LD mods do not agree with this advice