Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

wrongly accused of shoplifting

2

Comments

  • #32
    dubmando
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36 ✭dubmando


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    Your particular problem is that your acquaintance saw all this happen. Someone you know has gone home after seeing that, and must have at least some doubt in their mind now about your good character. This is a real problem, not just a hypothetical one and the reason why you need to take professional advice.

    To clarify, my acquaintance did not just see this happen, he was included in this "search" and obviously the security man felt both, or one or the other of us had stolen. I have had professional advice, and am awaiting the actions of the management of the store before We make any decisions. A voucher of any description is of no value to me and would make no difference in my life. What I would take on board, is the managements structure to staff training. What todays events should emphasize to any management is the importance of good customer service to the success of a business. Particularly in the economic climate which exists at present.


  • #33
    montane
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 245 ✭✭montane


    The Muppet wrote: »
    I'm afraid retailers have to act under the same laws as the rest of us, defamation is a serious crime, Prices are irrelevant.

    It's the public nature of the actions that are most damaging, The search should have happened in private. I'm sure you wouldn't like your character damaged in such a manner.

    Yes, I'm sure the security guards company should have realised this. Clever by the retailer not directly hiring security.

    Prices are irrelevant, I dont agree. I merely said that people should bear this in mind next time they are talking about rip-off costs.


  • #34
    montane
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 245 ✭✭montane


    dubmando wrote: »
    To clarify, my acquaintance did not just see this happen, he was included in this "search" and obviously the security man felt both, or one or the other of us had stolen. I have had professional advice, and am awaiting the actions of the management of the store before We make any decisions. A voucher of any description is of no value to me and would make no difference in my life. What I would take on board, is the managements structure to staff training. What todays events should emphasize to any management is the importance of good customer service to the success of a business. Particularly in the economic climate which exists at present.

    Let me translate and dispense with all the bull$hit - "I'm interested in making a quick buck over a minor inconvenience". And best of luck to you, the system is at fault.


  • #35
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    montane wrote: »
    Let me translate and dispense with all the bull$hit - "I'm interested in making a quick buck over a minor inconvenience". And best of luck to you, the system is at fault.

    Minor Inconvienence, are you for real.

    It could be all over her town that she was caught shoplifting, what's minor about that.


  • #36
    montane
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 245 ✭✭montane


    The Muppet wrote: »
    Minor Inconvienence, are you for real.

    It could be all over her town that she was caught shoplifting, what's minor about that.

    What are you talking about, she wasn't shop lifting, no-one said she was. I suppose in your eyes the next time I walk through a metal detector in the airport, I am planning to blow up a plane.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Hitchhiker's Guide to...
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,323 ✭✭✭Hitchhiker's Guide to...


    montane - please calm down with your posting.

    OP is perfectly entitled to consult solicitor and if her and her solicitor decide that her rights were impeded by the store then she is also perfectly entitled to take the matter further. You seem to be trying to make the OP out to be somehow wrong for wanting to pursue her legal rights.

    Also the thread should be about the issues, not attacking the poster and accusing her of 'trying to make a quick buck'


  • #38
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    montane wrote: »
    Let me translate and dispense with all the bull$hit - "I'm interested in making a quick buck over a minor inconvenience". And best of luck to you, the system is at fault.
    Bull.**** post


  • #39
    montane
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 245 ✭✭montane


    Latchy wrote: »
    Bull.**** post

    Yeah I know it was, I just called it as it was.


  • #40
    Hitchhiker's Guide to...
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,323 ✭✭✭Hitchhiker's Guide to...


    montane wrote: »
    Yeah I know it was, I just called it as it was.

    Just had a look back at what you posted before editing that previous post about making a quick buck. Think it would be best if you just took a break from the thread for now.


  • #41
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,007 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    montane wrote: »
    What are you talking about, she wasn't shop lifting, no-one said she was. I suppose the next time I walk through a metal detector in the airport, I am planning to blow up a plane.


    Listen we're not discussing setting off detectors in the wrong, it's alot more serious a situation that that and well you know it.


    When I was a kid a neighbour of mine was accused of shoplifting, to this day when I see her thats the first though that comes to mind and that was over 30 years ago.

    The OP does't know who saw her being searched. Those that did are unlikely to have hung around to see the outcome and chances are it's already out there in the public domain that she was caugh shoplifting.

    IMO the only way for the op to undo the potential damage done to her reputation is to go the legal route.

    I'm not into litigation myself but in this instance there is no other satisfactory solution imo.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    montane wrote: »
    Yeah I know it was, I just called it as it was.
    Dude ...it's you're post that's Bull... ...ah forget it


  • #43
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    The Muppet wrote: »
    I'm afraid retailers have to act under the same laws as the rest of us, defamation is a serious crime, Prices are irrelevant.

    It's the public nature of the actions that are most damaging, The search should have happened in private. I'm sure you wouldn't like your character damaged in such a manner.
    The search should not have been done by any store staff or security guard but only by a Garda and in the op's case a Ban Garda.

    Also didn't the op mention that their purchases were emptied out onto the floor by this security guard as he searched for the supposed stolen item(s)? This kind of aggressive behaviour has no place in any store no matter how much they lose to shoplifters.


  • #44
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    montane wrote: »
    Yeah I know it was, I just called it as it was.

    Truth being you have no idea about the shame you feel when someone accuses you of something you haven't done. This is not just "ah sure the security tag set something off she should have just kept walking", this girl was accused in public of being a shop lifter, her employer could have been in the store at the time, imagine seeing your employee being escorted back into a store and searched like that, you already form judgements in your mind, everyone does it, whether they like it or not.

    The PSA (Private Security Authority) teach this stuff in their training courses and every security guard is required to have a licence or have applied for a licence before they can operate in a store, I'd be making sure this chap has a licence OP. If he was not 100% sure of your actions then he should NOT have stopped you. You could have done something as innocently as picking up an item, carrying it around with you for a while, deciding you didn't want it and put it back on a shelf and that's why he thought you shop lifted, but if there was doubt there he should not have stopped you.

    The area manager knows this and will try and sweeten the deal by offering you vouchers etc


  • #45
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    This is not a Consumer Issue.

    Moved to Legal Discussion

    dudara


  • #46
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    That security guard is an idiot.

    His company is at fault for hiring him.

    The store is at fault for hiring them.

    Seriously sue them all.


  • #47
    Leonard Chilly Llama
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Leonard Chilly Llama


    get over it imo.

    Security guard makes a mistake, he didn't ask you back in for ****s and giggles, he was trying to do his job. I understand that he went about this the wrong way, as did the Manager who corrects him, apologises to you and probably disciplined the security guard afterwards.

    Life's too short.


  • #48
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    I don't really see what you can sue them for here. They will most likely give you a voucher or something to apologise. You should follow up with a letter of complaint to their head office and the PSA.


  • #49
    antocann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭antocann


    this , is kinda the same as what happend to me and my brother in spar ,

    we were buying several items , had 2 of 1 item so put it back ,

    paid and was almost home , then a guy that works there pulls up screeming and swearing at us saying we stole it ,

    told him we put it back as we were'nt purchasing it , and he proceeded swearing and name calling and woud'nt stop saying "why the fcuk would you put it back "


    then he proceeded to follow us name calling and swearing out his car window ,


  • #50
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    k_mac wrote: »
    I don't really see what you can sue them for here.

    False imprisonment, defamation, trespass to goods and slander of title to goods would be a start.


  • #51
    Leonard Chilly Llama
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Leonard Chilly Llama


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    False imprisonment, defamation, trespass to goods and slander of title to goods would be a start.

    False Imprisonment? They were requested to re-enter the shop and did so. Nothing imprisoning about that.

    Defamation? It wasn't posted in any paper, or broadcast on the Six one news

    This isn't America, I hate this "letter of the law" BS.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Kaizer Sosa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭Kaizer Sosa


    Isn't that libel when its printed?


  • #53
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    False imprisonment, defamation, trespass to goods and slander of title to goods would be a start.

    As they did everything voluntarily by request it would be difficult to prove any of this. No actual accusations were made either as far as I'm aware.


  • #54
    montane
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 245 ✭✭montane


    January wrote: »
    Truth being you have no idea about the shame you feel when someone accuses you of something you haven't done. This is not just "ah sure the security tag set something off she should have just kept walking", this girl was accused in public of being a shop lifter, her employer could have been in the store at the time, imagine seeing your employee being escorted back into a store and searched like that, you already form judgements in your mind, everyone does it, whether they like it or not.

    My car was searched for drugs in February by two guards at the side of a busy road. So now everyone thinks I'm a drug dealer ?:eek:


  • #55
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,463 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    k_mac wrote: »
    As they did everything voluntarily by request it would be difficult to prove any of this. No actual accusations were made either as far as I'm aware.

    The OP said she was accused of shoplifting by the security guard
    "We had to return to get bags searched, we had left the store with items not paid for"


  • #56
    234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    k_mac wrote: »
    As they did everything voluntarily by request it would be difficult to prove any of this. No actual accusations were made either as far as I'm aware.

    Look at s2 of the Defamation Act 2009, defamation can be non-verbal and non-written. It only has to tend to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. There is no need for specific accusations. You can have defamation by innuendo.
    Kaizer Sosa wrote: »
    Isn't that libel when its printed?

    Libel used to be defamation in a permanent form and slander was defamation in a transient form. It's now all defamation under the 2009 Act.
    Deleted User wrote: »

    Defamation? It wasn't posted in any paper, or broadcast on the Six one news

    This isn't America, I hate this "letter of the law" BS.

    The extent of publication of any statment is irrelevant to the possibility of it being defamatory, however it may go to the amount of damages.
    If you have a legal right then you a perfectly entitled to assert it. The courts will never hear a vaxatious complaint.
    The Muppet wrote: »
    I'm afraid retailers have to act under the same laws as the rest of us, defamation is a serious crime, Prices are irrelevant.
    Defamation is not a crime, it's a tort.


  • #57
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    234 wrote: »
    Look at s2 of the Defamation Act 2009, defamation can be non-verbal and non-written. It only has to tend to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. There is no need for specific accusations. You can have defamation by innuendo.

    But do you not have to publish it to a third party?


  • #58
    Leonard Chilly Llama
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Leonard Chilly Llama


    @234, thanks for the reply, I actually have very little/no experience with law. I was addressing the OP with common sense as opposed to a legal opinion.

    Simply feel that it's not a big enough deal to get wound up by.


  • #59
    Bigcheeze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Bigcheeze


    Zambia wrote: »
    That security guard is an idiot.

    His company is at fault for hiring him.

    The store is at fault for hiring them.

    Seriously sue them all.

    If you want to waste lots of your own time and money and look an idiot in the process. This is not America.

    People act like assholes all the time and it can be be upsetting but you can't sue em all.

    A written apology should be sufficient.


  • #60
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Deleted User wrote: »
    @234, thanks for the reply, I actually have very little/no experience with law. I was addressing the OP with common sense as opposed to a legal opinion.

    Simply feel that it's not a big enough deal to get wound up by.

    It is though, unless that security guard was 1000% sure that the OP shoplifted then he should NOT have stopped her. She could have been shoplifting, but he had to be completely sure of it, otherwise he should never have even asked her to come back into the store. Part of basic security guard training.

    Defamation is a big thing, completely different to libel as that's written. Why do you think the area manager is making such a big fuss of this?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Leonard Chilly Llama
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Leonard Chilly Llama


    January wrote: »
    It is though, unless that security guard was 1000% sure that the OP shoplifted then he should NOT have stopped her. She could have been shoplifting, but he had to be completely sure of it, otherwise he should never have even asked her to come back into the store. Part of basic security guard training.

    Defamation is a big thing, completely different to libel as that's written. Why do you think the area manager is making such a big fuss of this?

    I'm aware, I worked in retail for 3 years during college.

    The area manager is making a big fuss because it's an embarrassing situation for all involved. The security guard didn't follow protocol and as a result an overly anal person could press for compensation. The area manager knows that this is a terrible outcome for all involved, and as a result is trying to ensure that they can "make it right" without anyone involving solicitors etc.

    Just because "you can" doesn't mean "you should".

    For instance, people in bumper benders "could" claim for whiplash, physios etc. But for the most part, this is unnecessary.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement