Stopped With A Friend Who Was Caught Shoplifting

[Stphwnts]

I am 16 and I was with 2 friends and one of them was caught shoplifting at mervyn's and niether my friend nor I had anything to do with it, but they stopped all of us and now they say I have to pay a $300 fine even though I never did anything. Do they have a case?? Would i have to pay for it??

ps i live in california

[seniorjudge]

This is an ancient story and one that is rarely believed.

[panther10758]

Give a more detailed story you might get some answers. However if you were with the thieves and stayed with them and had knowledge of theft you can be charged as well! Even if your only role was lookout

[MichaelG]

You can be charged as a accomplice to shoplifting (or many other crimes) if you take any form of a active roll to aid in the theft ie lookout, distraction, plan it out...etc

However since I know a little about LP and he has come on a legal board to ask this I think that the LP should at least give the kid somewhat the "benifit of the doubt" and at least review the CCTV (im sure they were watching them ) - if the kid's story holds up then there will be no conclusive evidence on the tape that he, in any way, was aiding the theft and that he, honestly, was just hanging near his pal ... who was shoplifting ... if he was just hanging near his pal - let him GO ... if guilty - pay.

PS - I say this because this HAPPENED to me. Freind of mine was S/Ling in Nordstorms and we both got stopped. LP took us back, reviewed the tape, saw that I was simply trying on clothes next to my pal who was, solely, lifting - and released me without even a warning or ban ie "I can go back there and shop if I wanted".

[panther10758]

Reviewing the tape is of course an option however why even bring him to LP office if he didnt already know he played a role!? LP watched theft they already know who played what role in the theft. The OP did something that convinced the LPO that he (OP) was a participant in the theft.

[elorei]

Reviewing the tape is of course an option however why even bring him to LP office if he didnt already know he played a role!?

You honestly think that LP officers never bring anyone back to question unless they *KNOW* someone was stealing?

If these guys were as good as you think, they would be working for the FBI, not K-Mart.

[panther10758]

You clearly know little on LP work or trainning. An LP is not to bring a suspect into LP Office unless they have all the required elements to make a stop. They cannot bring in a suspect with all these elements. In this case the LP "must" have had all his/her elements to make a shoplifting arrest. This of course includes knowledge of OP's involvement.

[elorei]

You clearly know little on LP work or trainning. An LP is not to bring a suspect into LP Office unless they have all the required elements to make a stop. They cannot bring in a suspect with all these elements. In this case the LP "must" have had all his/her elements to make a shoplifting arrest. This of course includes knowledge of OP's involvement.

I have been taken to the "back room" twice in my life for shoplifting. Once was because a 50 year old man i was speaking to ( I did not know him) was caught shoplifting. I took nothing, they could not prove i took anything, I did not even know the man's name.

The second time i was "busted" for shoplifting was for putting my cell phone into my jacket pocket. Again, they had to let me go, and i landed a $100 gift certificate to Target for my troubles(I raised holy hell).

So do not sit here and tell me LP does not screw up.

[panther10758]

Once again you assume! LP makes mistake so do Cops Doctors etc etc. What I said was that LP has a criteria for stops! Neither you nor I were present at OPs stop so we know little. I made a blanket statement regarding the rules a Loss Prevention Office must follwo to make a stop. Yes mistakes happen and when they do the LPM or Store Manager should take action on the LP who did not follow the guidelines to make stops. We do not know if this is such a mistake or not unlike your incident OP knew the lifter and was with him during the theft. Your bias clouds your thinking on this one.

[elorei]

We do not know if this is such a mistake or not

This is exactly my point. We do not know, yet you assume that the LP would never have taken the guy without *knowing* that he was involved in the theft.

You said: "LP watched theft they already know who played what role in the theft."

Who is assuming now?

Once again you assume!

Yes, i assume innocence until proof is provides otherwise. Wait, that sounds like something I have heard before.