9k for a can of coke!

growleaves

False imprisonment is fairly serious though.

TP_CM

It's such a weird case. I mean what security guard really gives a crap about a teenager walking out without paying for a can of coke? Would you really be arsed? Fair enough if it's a trolley full of booze, or a repeat offender, but a can of fizzy pop?

walshb

TP_CM wrote: »

It's such a weird case. I mean what security guard really gives a crap about a teenager walking out without paying for a can of coke? Would you really be arsed? Fair enough if it's a trolley full of booze, or a repeat offender, but a can of fizzy pop?

What?

He’s doing his job...or trying to..

Why wouldn’t security try to stop thieves?

The boy paid for his item. The security man did not set out to deliberately stop a person that they knew paid for the item..there is context here, but most folks want to just jump on the store and tge security..

It’s an anti establishment mentality. And then try to get as much out of it as possible..

The mentality of fook these companies, they can afford to pay.

Mjolnir

TP_CM wrote: »

It's such a weird case. I mean what security guard really gives a crap about a teenager walking out without paying for a can of coke? Would you really be arsed? Fair enough if it's a trolley full of booze, or a repeat offender, but a can of fizzy pop?

Given its the square tallaght the security has always been heavy handed and poorly educated on the law regardless of what firm worked there.
I've seen pre-teen traveller girls being dragged by their hair to break up a fight, that was 8 - 9 years ago when I lived up that way it used to be mental.

johnnyryan89

walshb wrote: »

Ok.

So security in stores that see someone thieve have to simply let the person do so and let them leave. They cannot challenge them or speak to them or investigate in any way?

Ok, I am lost.

I can go to my local SuperValu and load up load goods and walk out unchallenged?

More or less. We were told to let them leave the store before approaching them and never to approach them unless you're 110% sure they've left with an item and didn't pay.

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

What?

He’s doing his job...or trying to..

Why wouldn’t security try to stop thieves?

The boy paid for his item. The security man did not set out to deliberately stop a person that they knew paid for the item..there is context here, but most folks want to just jump on the store and tge security..

It’s an anti establishment mentality. And then try to get as much out of it as possible..

The mentality of fook these companies, they can afford to pay.

Jesus wept, because he has no legal right or authority to do so.
He's job is to deter theft not to arrest someone, he does not have the authority to do so.

Actually I'm viewing it from a neutral point of view of what the law says for this scenario and the kid was well within his rights.
If it was a corner shop I'd say the exact same thing.

Iteration1

I worry more about the lack of common sense. Stupid litigation awards have resulted in people defaulting to suing as the first resort for any transgression. Oh you bumped into me? Thats an opportunity for me to sue... Without even knowing additional detail about the case, people have identified on this thread that they would have pursued further litigation. Not because it was called for, because it merited it, or because it seemed justified, just because they can. They might get something out of it, so they should.

Mjolnir

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

More or less. We were told to let them leave the store before approaching them and never to approach them unless you're 110% sure they've left with an item and didn't pay.

At least you're told in my security time I've worked with lads who taught they were cops and were actively encouraged to act as such by management.
The lads and ladies who know the score avoid the headaches.

walshb

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

More or less. We were told to let them leave the store before approaching them and never to approach them unless you're 110% sure they've left with an item and didn't pay.

Ok, so they can challenge them..

Once they step off the premises, security can approach them..

Mjolnir

Iteration1 wrote: »

I worry more about the lack of common sense. Stupid litigation awards have resulted in people defaulting to suing as the first resort for any transgression. Oh you bumped into me? Thats an opportunity for me to sue... Without even knowing additional detail about the case, people have identified on this thread that they would have pursued further litigation. Not because it was called for, because it merited it, or because it seemed justified, just because they can. They might get something out of it, so they should.

That's a solicitors job though, to seek the maximimum compensation possible for their client.
If an avenue thats could possibly provide a successful claim isn't at least presented to the client the solicitor can ultimately be sued.

Yes there are vexatious claims that are beyond ridiculous I 100% agree, but the legitimate ones remain legitimate.

TP_CM

walshb wrote: »

What?

He’s doing his job...or trying to..

Why wouldn’t security try to stop thieves?

The boy paid for his item. The security man did not set out to deliberately stop a person that they knew paid for the item..there is context here, but most folks want to just jump on the store and tge security..

It’s an anti establishment mentality. And then try to get as much out of it as possible..

The mentality of fook these companies, they can afford to pay.

Yeah no I get you. Still though.. Really.. A can of coke.. from a giant company like Tesco? That you're not even 100% sure about? I just think life is hard enough dealing with the gutter of society day in day out. Would you really be arsed taking this risk unless you've seen it on the cctv. I think I'd take my 15 quid an hour or whatever it is and go home. While all this was going on, someone could have been walking out with trolley loads of whiskey. I would just concentrate more on the trolleys or at least items worth more than 50 cent or whatever they buy it at.

walshb

Mjolnir wrote: »

Jesus wept, because he has no legal right or authority to do so.
He's job is to deter theft not to arrest someone, he does not have the authority to do so.

Actually I'm viewing it from a neutral point of view of what the law says for this scenario and the kid was well within his rights.
If it was a corner shop I'd say the exact same thing.

I never said anything about security arresting anyone..

Security can approach someone they suspect of having thieved

meathstevie

Mjolnir wrote: »

The young fella was defamed not only amongst his peers but the larger community in the shopping centre, forcibly and falsely imprisoned and the security guard admitted fault.
Why wouldn't he sue he'd every right to do so.
Security guards don't have the authority to do what he did and before anyone brings up citizens arrest, yea you can still be sued for that.
Tort law exists for a reason and it was utilised well here.
You'd swear he'd purposefully slipped and was making a vexious fraudulent claim.

It’s not a “citizen arrest”, it’s a civilian arrest and theft is one of the offences for which there is a civilian power of arrest.

I wonder if the claimant made a complaint with Gardai in relation to alleged false imprisonment as well ?

Iteration1

Mjolnir wrote: »

That's a solicitors job though, to seek the maximimum compensation possible for their client.
If an avenue thats could possibly provide a successful claim isn't at least presented to the client the solicitor can ultimately be sued.

Yes there are vexatious claims that are beyond ridiculous I 100% agree, but the legitimate ones remain legitimate.

Point taken about that being the role of a solicitor, to get maximum benefit for their client. Its more the system that awards vexatious claims that I have an issue with, or the disproportionate awards provided for legitimate claims, by judges that don't know the price of a pint of milk. This has led to people seeing litigation as an opportunity, rather than a means of retribution.

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

I never said anything about security arresting anyone..

Security can approach someone they suspect of having thieved

Stopping someone, accusing them of theft and preventing them from leaving is arresting their movement and freedom.
You asked could they, you were answered, you don't like or believe the answer you were given, there's nothing more to say at this point.

walshb

Mjolnir wrote: »

Stopping someone, accusing them of theft and preventing them from leaving is arresting their movement and freedom.
You asked could they, you were answered, you don't like or believe the answer you were given, there's nothing more to say at this point.

Someone else said that security can approach if the person is off the premises..

Article says pulled back into the store. Implies he had left the store..

Then pulled back in...I’d line to hear or see this event to know for sure..

You can bet the solicitor for the boy hammed it up.

Anyway, huge mountain out of molehill it reads to me..

Mjolnir

Iteration1 wrote: »

Point taken about that being the role of a solicitor, to get maximum benefit for their client. Its more the system that awards vexatious claims that I have an issue with, or the disproportionate awards provided for legitimate claims, by judges that don't know the price of a pint of milk. This has led to people seeing litigation as an opportunity, rather than a means of retribution.

A professor told us most judges are old white ucd grads and former barristers, there's a type haha.

It's a double edge sword because it's there job, but some just take great pleasure in throwing in claims that have no business being made.

I know of one fella in particular who will take any claim comes his way regardless, he makes good money at it.

Mjolnir

walshb wrote: »

Someone else said that security can approach if the person is off the premises..

Anyway, huge mountain out of molehill it reads to me..

Theoretically you can do what you like, technically you or I can walk into tesco tomorrow and do the same as the security guard we'll have the same results.

They can't stop you leaving in anyway, and if they make the accusation in a way where basically anyone else notices or hears they can be sued for defimation, you don't even have to be negatively effected by the defimation to claim it.

Have people been stopped and detained after stealing and not brought a case, oh yea you bet I've seen it happen first hand multiple times and have always stepped away from it.
At the same time if they've any inclination of a claim they will, defimation in that scenario would be hard but not impossible to pursue.

poisonated

A lot of security guards/bouncers thin in they can make up the rules as they go.

Iteration1

Mjolnir wrote: »

A professor told us most judges are old white ucd grads and former barristers, there's a type haha.

It's a double edge sword because it's there job, but some just take great pleasure in throwing in claims that have no business being made.

I know of one fella in particular who will take any claim comes his way regardless, he makes good money at it.

Out of curiosity, I know we've agreed its the solicitor's responsibility to present the best argument, but is there a line often crossed? ie If a client states they were annoyed by a security guard, is there any repercussion for a solicitor to suggest that they were actually traumatised? Is there a grey line? Or a definitive one, that is regularly broken in the confidence of client/solicitor preparation?

Mjolnir

poisonated wrote: »

A lot of security guards/bouncers thin in they can make up the rules as they go.

Ah stop from working in the industry I know a few lads think they're bloody guards.
You'll always have a colleagues back but if they flat out blatantly break laws good luck to ya.

Mjolnir

Iteration1 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, I know we've agreed its the solicitor's responsibility to present the best argument, but is there a line often crossed? ie If a client states they were annoyed by a security guard, is there any repercussion for a solicitor to suggest that they were actually traumatised? Is there a grey line? Or a definitive one, that is regularly broken in the confidence of client/solicitor preparation?

See with that you're talking about nervous shock and it has to be a recognisable mental condition, ptsd, depression, etc just for examples and it would have to be diagnosed. Saying I'm now stressed doesn't meet the standard of the test (thankfully).
But we can speculate that given the sheer numbers there is more than likely some dodgy solicitors some may even know dodgy Dr's.
There's a line a solicitor must preform their duty to the client without actually breaking the law or do anything worthy of being disbarred

Mjolnir

Iteration1 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, I know we've agreed its the solicitor's responsibility to present the best argument, but is there a line often crossed? ie If a client states they were annoyed by a security guard, is there any repercussion for a solicitor to suggest that they were actually traumatised? Is there a grey line? Or a definitive one, that is regularly broken in the confidence of client/solicitor preparation?

Actually I remember an off the cuff remark from a judge it may not have been ireland I can't remember as it was a few years ago. He proposed that any solicitor bring such vexatious claims should be liable to fines and if a repeat offender disbarred as they are wasting the courts time.

Jizique

walshb wrote: »

Security guards surely have some rights as regards stopping theft? Of course, sometimes they get it wrong, but they have to be able to at least challenge those that they believe have stolen?

This incident they got wrong. But 9000 euro is ridiculous.

If this boy paid for the items in a way that led to serious suspicion, then he also must share some blame..

And there are absolute cases where people deliberately set out to be accused..

One of the reasons retail will die - much easier to force everyone to buy online, no risk of pilfering, much lower staff costs - and then we will wonder where the 200k who used to work in retail will now go?

Iteration1

Mjolnir wrote: »

See with that you're talking about nervous shock and it has to be a recognisable mental condition, ptsd, depression, etc just for examples and it would have to be diagnosed. Saying I'm now stressed doesn't meet the standard of the test (thankfully).
But we can speculate that given the sheer numbers there is more than likely some dodgy solicitors some may even know dodgy Dr's.
There's a line a solicitor must preform their duty to the client without actually breaking the law or do anything worthy of being disbarred

That's a long way from requiring them to be ethical. Ok. Thanks for the explanation.

Mjolnir

Iteration1 wrote: »

That's a long way from requiring them to be ethical. Ok. Thanks for the explanation.

Ethics is a grey area, strictly speaking you should act ethical in practice ehhhh..... like every occupation I suppose ya get some awful chancers.

There are some I've heard of will push the boundaries without flat out crossing the line and just accept the ones getting thrown out that they expected to be, while being successful on the others.

...Ghost...

Iteration1 wrote: »

I worry more about the lack of common sense. Stupid litigation awards have resulted in people defaulting to suing as the first resort for any transgression. Oh you bumped into me? Thats an opportunity for me to sue... Without even knowing additional detail about the case, people have identified on this thread that they would have pursued further litigation. Not because it was called for, because it merited it, or because it seemed justified, just because they can. They might get something out of it, so they should.

Have you ever been detained by a security guard as a kid? I was and I remember it like it was yesterday. Embarrassing, frightening. I remember seeing the looks from members of the community as I was walked into a small security room in a Dunnes Stores. I was kept there for more than an hour, lectured on thieving and threatened with the Gardaí and jail. The b@stards wouldn't listen when I said I hadn't stolen anything. I was there with a casual friend and she was a couple years older than me. She stole a packet of skittles and I wasn't even in Dunnes with her, but both of us were grabbed outside. I had to wait to be collected and I was barred for 6 months from the shopping centre even though the girl said I had nothing to do with it multiple times.

Seeing this lad getting an award of 9k, I fully understand and agree with it. Some security guards are cowards and would never attempt to stop someone walking out with a trolley of unpaid booze.....but a 15 year old is an easy target. They deserved to be sued and it's the only way they change their behaviour.

poisonated

I was a used of stealing something when I had bought it in the shop next door. The guy was apologetic but had I known I could have gotten so much money.... nah, I wouldn’t sue. This is why I always make sure to get a receipt.

Iteration1

...Ghost... wrote: »

Have you ever been detained by a security guard as a kid? I was and I remember it like it was yesterday. Embarrassing, frightening. I remember seeing the looks from members of the community as I was walked into a small security room in a Dunnes Stores. I was kept there for more than an hour, lectured on thieving and threatened with the Gardaí and jail. The b@stards wouldn't listen when I said I hadn't stolen anything. I was there with a casual friend and she was a couple years older than me. She stole a packet of skittles and I wasn't even in Dunnes with her, but both of us were grabbed outside. I had to wait to be collected and I was barred for 6 months from the shopping centre even though the girl said I had nothing to do with it multiple times.

Seeing this lad getting an award of 9k, I fully understand and agree with it. Some security guards are cowards and would never attempt to stop someone walking out with a trolley of unpaid booze.....but a 15 year old is an easy target. They deserved to be sued and it's the only way they change their behaviour.

No, I will admit I haven't, but I didn't hang around with casual mates that did shoplift, probably out of the fear of what would happen if they were caught. There was an expectation that you would be hauled in and reprimanded and strung up at home for being associated. Being detained and threatened with the guards is not a war crime, its a life lesson. You were detained for an hour, he was detained for 5 minutes. Does that mean you feel entitled to €108,000? Is it just Dunnes Stores you want taught a lesson? Or all businesses? The kid gets €9,000 for a stupid 5min mistake. How much did the whole thing cost? Personally I just think its money wasted.

mikhail

The 9k is less compensation to the kid and more deterrent to Tesco. They're a giant multinational: their security staff should be trained properly.