Man Steals from store and the Store Owners are Charged ...

[24KT]

Store Owners Charged After Allegedly Chasing
Down And Beating Fleeing Accused Shoplifter
Monday May 25, 2009
CityNews.ca Staff



It's the scourge of all businesses in the city - shoplifting. But Toronto Police allege one group of store owners took their fight against the light fingered lifting a little too far.

It happened on Saturday afternoon, when police responded to a call in the Dundas and Spadina area around 1:30pm. David Chen, owner of Lucky Moose Food Mart, thought he saw a man shoplifting some merchandise, so he went to confront him. The alleged thief, who Chen claims has stolen from him in the past, wasn't about to stick around for questioning and fled on foot.
 
That's when Chen, his brother, and nephew, started chasing the man.

When he finally caught up to him, Chen claims the suspect punched him, and in an attempt to detain him until police arrived, he tied the man up and threw him in the back of a van owned by the business. 

"I get him, he punched me, so I can't hold him, so I (found) string to tie his hand and feet.  I wanted him charged." Chen explained

Chen says he was driving the man back to the store where he was planning on calling police, but cops were already waiting.  Apparently someone had the seen the incident go down and called 911.

It may be the accused shoplifter who started the chase, but cops have charged the trio, ages 21, 35 and 40, with assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement and carrying concealed weapon charges.  Chen says the so-called 'concealed weapons' were boxcutters used to open produce.

And in an irony lost on few, police tell CityNews.ca the man originally accused of shoplifting is facing theft under $500 - an accusation far less serious than the one his alleged pursuers are facing.

To make matters worse, the theft suspect was out of custody long before the three storeowners, who spent 24 hours behind bars before gathering up $22,000 in bail cash.

"Under the law they may have a legal right to affect an arrest, however, there are certain ramifications," notes PC Ben Eng.

See surveillance video footage of the event :

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1632714912?bctid=24216069001


Isn't that a kick in the teeth! 
It's unfortunate they were charged, but they did go beyond acceptable limits.

[Migs]

that's some bullshit

[240 is Back]

Slingshot loaded with some nice big 'boulder' marbles would solve this problem.

Turn off the cameras and crack that fvcker in the back with a nice piece of glass.  He won't recover.

[SAMSON123]

If he had stolen anythig...where is the merchandise??? Anyone can  make a claim, but is your claim truthful? Chen "thought" the man stole something so we are told, but did the man steal something is the question...

[Dos Equis]

Crazy.  What a screwed up system. 

[Al Doggity]

Crazy.  What a screwed up system. 

How so?  Because chasing someone through the streets, hog-tying them then secreting them away to an unspecified location has legal ramifications?

The charges will almost certainly be dismissed, or at the very least, the store won't be found guilty of anything, but these guys did go too far.

[Dos Equis]

How so?  Because chasing someone through the streets, hog-tying them then secreting them away to an unspecified location has legal ramifications?

The charges will almost certainly be dismissed, or at the very least, the store won't be found guilty of anything, but these guys did go too far.

Because the victims are being punished more severely than the criminal.  They've already spent more time in jail than the thief.  That's crazy.  Those folks should get the equivalent of a parking ticket IMO. 

[Al Doggity]

There's a limit to how far you can go. At some point, they stopped being the victims and became perpetrators. They didn't even claim to be certain the man was stealing from them.

[gordiano]

Unbelievable.....

[Dos Equis]

There's a limit to how far you can go. At some point, they stopped being the victims and became perpetrators. They didn't even claim to be certain the man was stealing from them.

Doesn't sound like they ever became perpetrators.  According to the story:  "Under the law they may have a legal right to affect an arrest, however, there are certain ramifications," notes PC Ben Eng.

If they have a "legal right to affect an arrest" then how are they supposed to do that without physically restraining the guy?  

I watched the clip.  No way should those people have been arrested and jailed while the repeat offender walks.    

[gordiano]

Doesn't sound like they ever became perpetrators.  According to the story:  "Under the law they may have a legal right to affect an arrest, however, there are certain ramifications," notes PC Ben Eng.

If they have a "legal right to affect an arrest" then how are they supposed to do that without physically restraining the guy?  

I watched the clip.  No way should those people have been arrested and jailed while the repeat offender walks.    

I agree. Besides, they actually had footage of that scumbag riding off with some merchandise before....so they did what they had to. It is an absolute shame that they went o jail over holding a scumbag for the police.

[Al Doggity]

Doesn't sound like they ever became perpetrators.  According to the story:  "Under the law they may have a legal right to affect an arrest, however, there are certain ramifications," notes PC Ben Eng.

If they have a "legal right to affect an arrest" then how are they supposed to do that without physically restraining the guy? 

I watched the clip.  No way should those people have been arrested and jailed while the repeat offender walks.   

The "repeat offender" didn't walk. He was charged.
I'm not even making the argument that the shopowners are in the wrong, necessarily. As I said, they will almost certainly serve no time and the charges will most likely be dropped. The argument that I'm making is that nothing about what happened is necessarily screwed up.

However, once they pursued the man they did place themselves in the role of "perpetrator". When two people fight, police arrest both parties, regardless of who started it. This is a similar situation. They left their property and committed acts that are technically criminal.

[Dos Equis]

The "repeat offender" didn't walk. He was charged.
I'm not even making the argument that the shopowners are in the wrong, necessarily. As I said, they will almost certainly serve no time and the charges will most likely be dropped. The argument that I'm making is that nothing about what happened is necessarily screwed up.

However, once they pursued the man they did place themselves in the role of "perpetrator". When two people fight, police arrest both parties, regardless of who started it. This is a similar situation. They left their property and committed acts that are technically criminal.

I don't mean walked in the sense that he wasn't charged.  I'm talking about this:

And in an irony lost on few, police tell CityNews.ca the man originally accused of shoplifting is facing theft under $500 - an accusation far less serious than the one his alleged pursuers are facing.

To make matters worse, the theft suspect was out of custody long before the three storeowners, who spent 24 hours behind bars before gathering up $22,000 in bail cash.

That's just not right. 

The police don't always arrest both parties when there is a fight, especially if it is clearly self defense.  In any event, this is nothing like a fight.  It's a guy caught on tape stealing (repeatedly) who was arrested by citizens (which the cop said they are apparently allowed to do), followed by the victims being treated like criminals and spending more time in jail than the thief (at least initially), and facing a harsher potential punishment than the thief.  There were also witnesses who saw what happened.  Sounds like a knee jerk reaction by the cops. 

That's screwed up.     

[tu_holmes]

Here's the thing...

To legally detain (let's not even talk about arresting someone, because they are two different things) someone for shop lifting (In the US), they have to be caught with the merchandise, or the merchandise has to be picked up from a place you saw them discard it.

Did the suspect have anything on him when he was caught?

If not, it's he said, she said, and there's no way you can legally detain them without the evidence of the crime.

Also, in most instances, you have a distance limitation of where you can legally detain a person once they leave your property with shoplifted merchandise.

Add to that, the fact that guy was tied up and not just detained in a waiting room, well... That's kidnapping.

Personally, if the guy DID steal something, I have no issue with what they did, but they had better be sure. If a police department arrest someone without any proof, they've got a lawsuit on their hands... A private citizen is even less protected if they do the same thing.

[Al Doggity]

I don't mean walked in the sense that he wasn't charged.  I'm talking about this:

And in an irony lost on few, police tell CityNews.ca the man originally accused of shoplifting is facing theft under $500 - an accusation far less serious than the one his alleged pursuers are facing.

To make matters worse, the theft suspect was out of custody long before the three storeowners, who spent 24 hours behind bars before gathering up $22,000 in bail cash.

That's just not right. 

The police don't always arrest both parties when there is a fight, especially if it is clearly self defense. In any event, this is nothing like a fight.  It's a guy caught on tape stealing (repeatedly) who was arrested by citizens (which the cop said they are apparently allowed to do), followed by the victims being treated like criminals and spending more time in jail than the thief (at least initially), and facing a harsher potential punishment than the thief.  There were also witnesses who saw what happened.  Sounds like a knee jerk reaction by the cops. 

That's screwed up.     

No. As a matter of fact, considering they were charged with assault, most of the charges probably stem from the fact that blows were exchanged. They left their property and used what could be considered excessive force. Yes, there were witnesses to the event. Some of those witnesses called the police on the shop owner- so even among witnesses, his actions aren't cut and dried.

[24KT]

If he had stolen anythig...where is the merchandise??? Anyone can  make a claim, but is your claim truthful? Chen "thought" the man stole something so we are told, but did the man steal something is the question...

It's all on the surveillance camera.

[24KT]

I don't mean walked in the sense that he wasn't charged.  I'm talking about this:

And in an irony lost on few, police tell CityNews.ca the man originally accused of shoplifting is facing theft under $500 - an accusation far less serious than the one his alleged pursuers are facing.

To make matters worse, the theft suspect was out of custody long before the three storeowners, who spent 24 hours behind bars before gathering up $22,000 in bail cash.

That's just not right. 

The police don't always arrest both parties when there is a fight, especially if it is clearly self defense.  In any event, this is nothing like a fight.  It's a guy caught on tape stealing (repeatedly) who was arrested by citizens (which the cop said they are apparently allowed to do), followed by the victims being treated like criminals and spending more time in jail than the thief (at least initially), and facing a harsher potential punishment than the thief.  There were also witnesses who saw what happened.  Sounds like a knee jerk reaction by the cops. 

That's screwed up.     

{lol} Beach, of course the accused shoplifter got out of jail earlier. Processing someone charged with "theft under" is a relatively simple thing to do. Someone charged with assault, kidnapping, and forcible confinement however is not as pro forma.

It also was not a simple matter of detaining him "on-the-spot". They hog tied him and put him in the back of a van, then proceeded to drive away in that van. You truly have to admit, that's a game changer. When you have witnesses calling 911, and the police arriving at the store before the owners are able to get back there themselves, ...well, like PC Eng says, ...there are ramifications. At some point, they did cross the line.

If you stole $60 from me, and I chased you down, beat you up, and killed you, would you think it appropriate for me to be charged with murder? Even if I didn't take your life, ...let's say I threw you into the back of a van, drove you to a different location, and beat you senseless with a baseball bat, ...would aggravated assault charges, or even attempted murder charges be appropriate? Which do you think would be quicker to process? Simple theft charges or charges that require a bail hearing, or the posting of large bond amounts.

[Dos Equis]

{lol} Beach, of course the accused shoplifter got out of jail earlier. Processing someone charged with "theft under" is a relatively simple thing to do. Someone charged with assault, kidnapping, and forcible confinement however is not as pro forma.

It also was not a simple matter of detaining him "on-the-spot". They hog tied him and put him in the back of a van, then proceeded to drive away in that van. You truly have to admit, that's a game changer. When you have witnesses calling 911, and the police arriving at the store before the owners are able to get back there themselves, ...well, like PC Eng says, ...there are ramifications. At some point, they did cross the line.

If you stole $60 from me, and I chased you down, beat you up, and killed you, would you think it appropriate for me to be charged with murder? Even if I didn't take your life, ...let's say I threw you into the back of a van, drove you to a different location, and beat you senseless with a baseball bat, ...would aggravated assault charges, or even attempted murder charges be appropriate? Which do you think would be quicker to process? Simple theft charges or charges that require a bail hearing, or the posting of large bond amounts.

We're not talking about murder.  We're talking about a thief repeatedly stealing from a store, getting caught, hog tied, and the police then treating the victim like the criminal.  What should have happened is the police should have done a little investigating first.  Instead, they took the Obama approach:  ready, fire, aim. 

[24KT]

We're not talking about murder.  We're talking about a thief repeatedly stealing from a store, getting caught, hog tied, and the police then treating the victim like the criminal.  What should have happened is the police should have done a little investigating first.  Instead, they took the Obama approach:  ready, fire, aim. 

The "victim" acted like a criminal. The cops just charge 'em. It's up to the courts to declare criminality.

[marcus]

They shouldn't be charged at all.

[SAMSON123]

It's all on the surveillance camera.

You better take another look at that surveillance camera....

First we are shown a person (deliberately blurred out) reaching over to pick up a plant. The person (we can not tell if it is a boy or man, but looks more like a boy) is on a bike as he does this (looks like a delivery person), he puts the plant on the handle bar and proceeds to begin riding (slowly). The next flash of video seen the man or boy is walking along side of his bike calmly, with no plant on the bike or in his hands. Suddenly we see men running out of the store after him. he looks back sees them coming drops his bike and begins running in fear... where is the plant he supposedly stole?  How come his face is blurred out in the beginning? These men normally run with rope to capture people and tie them up? How far away did this chase go if they needed to get a van to bring him back? If he had grabbed the plant to steal, how come he was walking along side of his bike calmly? The owner claimed he was running away... How do you run when you are on a bike and how do you run on a bike when video captures you WALKING CALMLY along side of the bike? Something is amiss here!!!

Nonetheless there are CITIZEN ARREST clauses in most countries, however one can not just beat up or tie up or hurt a supposed perpetrator, less the end result be what we witness here. The supposed "victim"

[24KT]

You better take another look at that surveillance camera....

First we are shown a person (deliberately blurred out) reaching over to pick up a plant. The person (we can not tell if it is a boy or man, but looks more like a boy) is on a bike as he does this (looks like a delivery person), he puts the plant on the handle bar and proceeds to begin riding (slowly). The next flash of video seen the man or boy is walking along side of his bike calmly, with no plant on the bike or in his hands. Suddenly we see men running out of the store after him. he looks back sees them coming drops his bike and begins running in fear... where is the plant he supposedly stole?  How come his face is blurred out in the beginning? These men normally run with rope to capture people and tie them up? How far away did this chase go if they needed to get a van to bring him back? If he had grabbed the plant to steal, how come he was walking along side of his bike calmly? The owner claimed he was running away... How do you run when you are on a bike and how do you run on a bike when video captures you WALKING CALMLY along side of the bike? Something is amiss here!!!

Nonetheless there are CITIZEN ARREST clauses in most countries, however one can not just beat up or tie up or hurt a supposed perpetrator, less the end result be what we witness here. The supposed "victim"

BINGO!!!

That's why the article is entitled: "Store Owners Charged After Allegedly Chasing Down And Beating Fleeing Accused Shoplifter"

That's also why I stated "It's all on the surveillance video", and refer to him as "the accused shoplifter".
His guilt has yet to be established. That's also why I put the word "victim" in italics earlier.
Like I said... The cops just charge 'em. It's up to the courts to declare criminality.

Thank Goodness I don't live in a city where the Police think they have the right to dispense justice, or determine that actions that contravene the law are justifiable. You guys really ought to think about the road you travel when you accept law enforcement making "justifiable unlawfulness" calls on the job, ...especially if you support it.

If a cop personally sympathizes with the store owners, fine... treat them with kid gloves as you make the arrest...but make the arrest. Offer them a cup of coffee while you fill out the paper work... try to make their incarceration & processing as smooth and as pleasant as possible, ...but don't automatically assume unlawful activities are justifiable. That's not their call. It could have been a case of mistaken identity. It could have been a case of 'I want you charged for having stolen from me in the past'... who knows. What's clear is... they went too far.

[chaos]

If they had just beat the shit out of him and left him in the street, would they have faced less charges, if any?

[24KT]

If they had just beat the shit out of him and left him in the street, would they have faced less charges, if any?

I don't think they would've been charged with kidnapping or forcible confinement. They might've even skated on the concealed weapons charge as well. Those'll probably be dropped, ...unless they used them in the altercation in any way.