• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question On Theft Related Story

glenn beck

Platinum Member
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/CVS.homicide.2.1693571.html

No one's denying what he might have done was wrong: allegedly stuffing crayons and toothpaste into his pockets and shoplifting.

But the fact that Anthony Kyser was killed after he was caught, and allegedly choked by a store employee -- with an off-duty sheriff's officer watching it happen -- continues to hit a nerve.

CBS 2's Kristyn Hartman reports.

Chicago congressman Bobby Rush calls it a case of political hot potato. First he sent a letter about Kyser to the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. He says that office put it off on police. So he sent a letter to the police, accusing the department of ignoring a homicide. Kyser's ex-wife believes that to be true.

Ann Marie Balboa said she wants justice served.

"I want the man that killed my ex-husband to pay for what he did," she said.

It was Saturday morning at a Chicago CVS Pharmacy. Police say Kyser shoplifted. A store employee went after him and made a citizen's arrest – putting him in a choke hold. Published reports say Kyser resisted. He later died. The medical examiner ruled it a homicide.

The police initially said it was accident. But the department late Thursday issued a statement saying it has an "active" investigation open.

Balboa heard from witnesses.

"They didn't have to choke him the way he did and when he's pleading for his life," she said. "I want the man to be charged with murder."

Balboa says things may have turned out differently if her ex-husband had been white.

She's not alone. Rush sent a letter to Superintendent Jody Weis and says his department is ignoring murder.

"A man's civil and human rights were violated. He lost his life," Rush said. "Though Mr. Kyser was only suspected of shoplifting, we have something in this country called due process."

If there is no action on the case, Rush says he might ask the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to investigate.

CBS 2 legal analyst Irv Miller has said when a suspect runs, an employee has a right to chase him and subdue him in a reasonable way. He could face charges only if it's an intentional, reckless act.


Chicago police on Thursday said they are in communication with Cook County prosecutors.

"We are committed to ensuring the proper resolution of this investigation in accordance with our responsibilities under the law," the police department said in a written statement.
I have a question about the bolded text. Didn't we have several news stories posted on here about an employee chasing down a suspect? After all was said and done, the employee gets fired for each related story.

Question is, is the legal analyst referring to an in store detainment? I guess I am confused about the law, is it only legal to detain someone in the store, and once they leave the premises, then it becomes illegal???


Also please note, this post has nothing to do with the story of his death, just the legality of it.
 
Does not matter. Employees are instructed to let theifs go.

Not only do you put people at risk of getting hurt, but it cost more to catch them. If an employee gets hurt, you better hope he is not on your companies insurance. If the guy gets hurt, you get publicity like this.
 
Question is, is the legal analyst referring to an in store detainment? I guess I am confused about the law, is it only legal to detain someone in the store, and once they leave the premises, then it becomes illegal???

Every state has its own set of rules. What may be legal here may be illegal somewhere else. I'm too lazy to look up this particular statute.
 
Does not matter. Employees are instructed to let theifs go.

I dunno, there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy in the difference between a shoplifter and a robber. While we can argue that they're both the same[in that they could be armed and dangerous], I see often that suspected shoplifters are chased down on or off premise without much repercussions from corporate while you could be fired for being a hero in intervening in a robbery instead of letting the police handle it.
 
I dunno, there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy in the difference between a shoplifter and a robber. While we can argue that they're both the same[in that they could be armed and dangerous], I see often that suspected shoplifters are chased down on or off premise without much repercussions from corporate while you could be fired for being a hero in intervening in a robbery instead of letting the police handle it.

It's gray area. Unfortunately, it usually requires an incident to shed light on it.
 
Yea it's not worth it to detain someone like that over some crayons. It's pretty pathetic. What idiot doesn't realize he is choking someone to death. And even after they lose consciousness you'd still have to be choking them. That's really horrible. Screw that guy.
 
The opinion of the thief's wife and attorney is so lol I want to puke on the CPD for not telling them to go fuck themselves.
 
Yea it's not worth it to detain someone like that over some crayons. It's pretty pathetic. What idiot doesn't realize he is choking someone to death. And even after they lose consciousness you'd still have to be choking them. That's really horrible. Screw that guy.

+1

Store employee is an idiot and deserves jail time. OMG guy stole some crayons, lets chase him down and keep choking him past the point where he's already unconscious.

Both parties involved are idiots, however, store employee is especially idiotic for being such an idiot.
 
Crayons and toothpaste... it's messed up that he died, but he was willing to go to jail over crayons and toothpaste?
 
Crayons and toothpaste... it's messed up that he died, but he was willing to go to jail over crayons and toothpaste?

He wouldnt have gone to jail over crayons and toothpaste...thats the whole point. What he stole is misdemeanor at worse.

I dont see why thief is getting so much hate here (besides it being ATOT)...I mean, they guys dead because he tried taking crayons and toothpaste, stuff he and his family obviously needed...its not like he jacked an iPad or something. If you were poor and your family hungry would you not steal food to feed them? You people are too blind to see the real problem here.
 
What a bunch of apologetic crap! If I was the store owner I'd just shoot the guy. There would be no argument about whether or not you restrain someone stealing from you or how you do it.

No business choking him? He has a duty as a free citizen to stop him. It's a tense adrenaline-filled situation; you stop someone by whatever means necessary and take NO CHANCES. Anytime you are in a fight, your could die, so you do whatever you feel it takes to win the fight. There is no time to think. It's all reaction. None of you were there, yet your so fucking willing to give the CRIMINAL the benefit of the doubt but not the hero?

The real problem is the poor, poor people? Stealing is OK if it's to survive? Go fuck yourselves! If you can't make it in this country you don't deserve to.
 
My family runs a retail store in Ontario, Canada. The laws here are probably different from where you are, but here are the main points.

Shoplifting is just a form of theft, although usually involving items of lower value. The Criminal Code differentiates between thefts of goods over or under a threshold value, the main differences being in severity of treatment upon conviction.

A store owner or employee has NO right to physically detain or assault an alleged thief. The fact of theft alone is not legal justification for such action. Now, if the thief assaults store staff in the incident the victim certainly has a right to self-defense as long as it is a "reasonable" level of response; still, theft alone is not cause for assault in retaliation. Technically, store staff who physically grab or detain a suspected thief, or search through their clothing to find a stolen item, are themselves committing assault. In practical terms, VERY few thieves will try to pursue assault charges against store staff in such cases, and police officers summoned to the scene are likely to downplay the "assault" aspect so it never gets processed. The same holds true for Security staff in the store or mall. These people are NOT deputized police officers with a right to physically detain suspects. However, they do it all the time and depend on the fact that police usually will back them up and ignore their actions as long as the suspect was not seriously harmed.

Making a charge of theft stick in court can be tough. Basically the store employee must be able to testify that he / she saw the accused pick up the item, conceal it (or not) and maintain possession of the item until the accused has left the premises without paying AND until the accused has been stopped and found still to be in possession of the stolen item. If you see the item taken but the thief manages to dump it before being caught, there is no proof of the theft. If you don't see the initial theft and only suspect it, finding the item in the thief's possession after leaving is proof only of possession of stolen property, and not of the original theft itself.

In the aftermath of such incidents many merchants are greatly disappointed by the light punishment given to offenders upon conviction. The one thing they can do to protect themselves against repeat performances is to issue a Trespass Order. Any private property owner (and this includes the tenants of leased retail space) can issue an order to any person (with reasonable cause such as having observed the person attempt to steal) not to enter that property for some specified time, even up to never again. Once that Trespass Order has been given to the person, he / she can be arrested for violating it on any future attempt to re-enter the store.
 
What a bunch of apologetic crap! If I was the store owner I'd just shoot the guy. There would be no argument about whether or not you restrain someone stealing from you or how you do it.

No business choking him? He has a duty as a free citizen to stop him. It's a tense adrenaline-filled situation; you stop someone by whatever means necessary and take NO CHANCES. Anytime you are in a fight, your could die, so you do whatever you feel it takes to win the fight. There is no time to think. It's all reaction. None of you were there, yet your so fucking willing to give the CRIMINAL the benefit of the doubt but not the hero?

The real problem is the poor, poor people? Stealing is OK if it's to survive? Go fuck yourselves! If you can't make it in this country you don't deserve to.

I'm so glad there's a big fucking ocean separating me from people like you (dumbfuck republican Americans, that is). This guy is no hero.

Also, LOL @ the article describing the situation as a "political hot potato" - I would have thought the politically popular thing to do is to prosecute murderers, but again, dumbfuck republican Americans make that difficult.
 
My family runs a retail store in Ontario, Canada. The laws here are probably different from where you are, but here are the main points.

Shoplifting is just a form of theft, although usually involving items of lower value. The Criminal Code differentiates between thefts of goods over or under a threshold value, the main differences being in severity of treatment upon conviction.

A store owner or employee has NO right to physically detain or assault an alleged thief. The fact of theft alone is not legal justification for such action. Now, if the thief assaults store staff in the incident the victim certainly has a right to self-defense as long as it is a "reasonable" level of response; still, theft alone is not cause for assault in retaliation. Technically, store staff who physically grab or detain a suspected thief, or search through their clothing to find a stolen item, are themselves committing assault. In practical terms, VERY few thieves will try to pursue assault charges against store staff in such cases, and police officers summoned to the scene are likely to downplay the "assault" aspect so it never gets processed. The same holds true for Security staff in the store or mall. These people are NOT deputized police officers with a right to physically detain suspects. However, they do it all the time and depend on the fact that police usually will back them up and ignore their actions as long as the suspect was not seriously harmed.

Making a charge of theft stick in court can be tough. Basically the store employee must be able to testify that he / she saw the accused pick up the item, conceal it (or not) and maintain possession of the item until the accused has left the premises without paying AND until the accused has been stopped and found still to be in possession of the stolen item. If you see the item taken but the thief manages to dump it before being caught, there is no proof of the theft. If you don't see the initial theft and only suspect it, finding the item in the thief's possession after leaving is proof only of possession of stolen property, and not of the original theft itself.

In the aftermath of such incidents many merchants are greatly disappointed by the light punishment given to offenders upon conviction. The one thing they can do to protect themselves against repeat performances is to issue a Trespass Order. Any private property owner (and this includes the tenants of leased retail space) can issue an order to any person (with reasonable cause such as having observed the person attempt to steal) not to enter that property for some specified time, even up to never again. Once that Trespass Order has been given to the person, he / she can be arrested for violating it on any future attempt to re-enter the store.

You laws are so fucked I'm surprised anyone lives there. Oh wait...
 
I'm so glad there's a big fucking ocean separating me from people like you (dumbfuck republican Americans, that is). This guy is no hero.

Also, LOL @ the article describing the situation as a "political hot potato" - I would have thought the politically popular thing to do is to prosecute murderers, but again, dumbfuck republican Americans make that difficult.

I'm moving to NZ asap. Too many religious idiots here. I can teach you about human nature. It's obviously something you have very little experience with. We can have a party.
 
What a bunch of apologetic crap! If I was the store owner I'd just shoot the guy. There would be no argument about whether or not you restrain someone stealing from you or how you do it.

No business choking him? He has a duty as a free citizen to stop him. It's a tense adrenaline-filled situation; you stop someone by whatever means necessary and take NO CHANCES. Anytime you are in a fight, your could die, so you do whatever you feel it takes to win the fight. There is no time to think. It's all reaction. None of you were there, yet your so fucking willing to give the CRIMINAL the benefit of the doubt but not the hero?

The real problem is the poor, poor people? Stealing is OK if it's to survive? Go fuck yourselves! If you can't make it in this country you don't deserve to.

The dude was pleading for his life, doubtful he was any threat at any point to the overzealous store employee. A dude died over some fucking toothpaste and crayons and you're calling the guy who did it a hero? They're both CRIMINALS here, you can't do what the worker did, and cold blooded murder >>>>>> stealing $5 worth of shit. So realistically the worker should get charged for murder and spend a long time in jail. Hero? Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. If the dude hadn't died he would have got a slap on the wrist at worst. You tell me which is worse here...
 
Back
Top