Lionbackers.com

As an ex-security guard, I know the first rule is to protect yourself and the client's property.

Ok that is true. But I dont think the building was in any grave danger at the time... I could see if someone was trying to break into the building and then he saw the guy breaking into the car, that is different. I believe 100% that he did the right thing, and I cant see how people think it was wrong.

as a third party, I dont think he was wrong, but I can see and understand why his employer would have a problem with it, although a reprimand, maybe even a very short suspension, might have been a lot more appropriate.

KnowItAll wrote:as a third party, I dont think he was wrong, but I can see and understand why his employer would have a problem with it, although a reprimand, maybe even a very short suspension, might have been a lot more appropriate.

Absolutely, firing was a little harsh. However, he may have already had a less than favourable history with the company.

Come to think of it...if this guy beefed up a bit he may be an asset to our O-line!

pinkfreud wrote:As for his company's position, my guess is it comes down to money and wanting to avoid lawsuits. Their insurance probably doesn't cover any action taken outside a well defined area (i.e. inside Harbour Centre). So if the "victim" (the thief) was injured or killed and decided to sue it would cost the company big bucks. Likewise with the employee - if he were killed his family might come after the company.

That's a great point, and it was clearly illustrated by today's court ruling against a security company that was ordered to pay $12,000 to a shoplifter who was caught stealing from their client's business (Superstore).

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... ifter.html

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... f9&k=71217

If a security company is already liable to be sued in situations where their guards are taking action against someone who is directly affecting their client, then by default, they will be even more liable to be sued if their guards take action against someone who is not directly harming the place they are hired to protect.

I can understand how difficult it would be for a security guard to balance moral, ethical, and legal behavior. It could be a catch-22 for them.

Ya, in a situation where you're job is to physically apprehend someone, boundaries have to be set in terms of how much force you're entitled to use and within what parameters you can use that force. We like to frame the actions of security guards and the like as heroic and altruistic. But really, there's a fine line between what we think is altruism and what, in fact, is someone seizing the situation to kick the crap out of someone else.

On the flip side pinkfreud if the shoplifter didn't steal then there is no problem.

After this incident he "[could] no longer chew properly or speak properly" yet he still mustered the strength to steal a car. So I don't have much sympathy for him.

And don't forget after he was caught he didn't turn over the razors, he resisted. So once you resist an arrest (In this case a citizens arrest I guess) you've got whats coming to you.

"The two employees grabbed him by the arm as he tried to leave the store. Baines tried to pull away, and the three men began to struggle.

All three ended up stumbling down the stairs"

I'm sick and tired of this crap. Rights rights rights is all we hear. A thief starts screaming that their rights were violated ...

Here's a newsflash ... Rights only belong to those people who decide to live within a ruled society. Once you decide to break those rules of that society, you also choose to no longer have those rights apply to you.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say on one hand that you are disregarding the society's rules and then on the other hand want the rights of that society applied to you. You want the privileges of belonging to a society, then live within the rules of that society. You don't want the rules to apply to you, then don't expect to receive those privileges either.

Back to what Macnews said.... He doesn't try breaking the law by stealing, then there is no issue. Let's go back to primary cause. The thief CHOSE to steal - it was his decision, his act of free will. It was his CHOICE to disregard society's laws. Thus society's privileges no longer apply.

Rights rights rights. It sure would be refreshing to have someone start screaming about Personal Responsibility!

It always shocks me when judges give crooks damages in any type of personal injury case. Without knowing the evidence, it is hard to assess the merit of the crook's case but it is hard to fathom how a crook being lawfully detained can win a case like this UNLESS it is excessive force and the persons making the arrest are in that case not dissimilar to the rules applying to police officers making arrests.

The power to arrest does not extend to remaking the suspects face. If there is injury due to the battle with a suspect, then the facts and evidence before the court should determine if it is was excessive or incidental.

Without seeing a complete transcript it is hard to know what the judge saw. I am sure it was trial by judge alone, not a jury as they guy would have fared less well with a jury, in my opinion which is why the plaintiff's lawyer would not want a jury trial. Just a guess as I didn't read much on this.

The Criminal Code S.494 gives people the authority to make arrests in certain situations which starts where the person is found to be committing an offence. Thus it begins with someone being seen and then the chase is on. Others may join the pursuit or the arrest as it shows even if they didn't see the person doing the crime.

1) Anyone may arrest without warrant
a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
b) a person who, on reasonable and probable grounds, he believes
i) has committed a criminal offence and
ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by person(s) who have
lawful authority to arrest that person.

2) Anyone who is
a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property; or
b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful
possession of property, may arrest without warrant a person
whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to
that property.

It is also not dissimilar to when idiots run onto the field or disrupt the crowd at BC Place or a fight breaks out in the stands and security officials grab the offender. Every time they do grab a person, they run the very risk that the security guards ended up with in this case.

I still think that it was good publicity for the company when the security guard ran across the road. They just turned it bad. It could have been handled much like the police do when a citizen makes an arrest of a dangerous suspect on the spur of the moment and they later thank the guy but warn the public about the dangers of getting involved. This reinstills in our minds that yes, this was good for the guy to help the police or nab the bad guy, but for the most part, it is not wise to be a hero as you're not a hero when you 're dead.

Revisiting this old thread, the former, fired, good Samaritan security guard Shawn Fortin that made me create this thread 5.5 years ago is actually a huge BC Lions fan and he has posted some Lions clips. He also posted this clip showing himself catching a car thief that caused him to get fired:

Did another company pick him up?

Yes, he left his post but no he should not have been fired as he acted for the greater good. That car thief could have gone off and killed someone as some of these idiots go crazy.