[lpkmckenna]

LCBO guards don uniforms after Youtube identity mix-up.

Here's the relevant vid: This poor soul tried to steal a 26oz bottle of smirnoff from the lcbo.

Not my title, by the way. Scroll through the comments to see my take:

lpkmckenna (3 weeks ago)
This looked totally legit to me. Good job LCBO.All the morons standing around harassing the security should be ashamed of themselves.

I hate it when gawking bystanders decide to step-up as "victim advocates." If you have doubts, call the police, but don't get involved.

Uniformed security might prevent annoying gawkers, but sometimes security needs to be plain-clothes to do their job.

[moodymonster]

it is quite difficult to restrain someone - didn't look to me like the guards were doing anything wrong.

[macintologist]

They were no where near as bad as the pigs on the UCLA campus who tasered that student multiple times.

[subego]

Observations:

The security guards had no control of the situation. Doesn't some bystander start dancing on the guy's ankle?

Why didn't they flash some sort of badge?

If you can say "I can't breathe", you are, in fact, breathing.

Edit: No radio? No Panic Button? No backup?

Edit 2: WTF is a lcbo?

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by subego 

Edit 2: WTF is a lcbo?

Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

It's a liquor store, as alcohol can't be purchased from corner stores in Ontario.

[subego]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

It's a liquor store, as alcohol can't be purchased from corner stores in Ontario.

Ouch. That sucks.

At least it explains the lack of backup.

Well, why shouldn't those people be in uniform?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, why shouldn't those people be in uniform?

It's easy to steal when you can plainly see that the guard is on the opposite end of the store. It's harder to steal (and easier to be caught) if anyone and everyone is a potential security guard incognito.

Originally Posted by subego

The security guards had no control of the situation. Doesn't some bystander start dancing on the guy's ankle?

They had control of the situation, but they can't control every bystander present. But that jackass shouldn't have gotten involved.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It's easy to steal when you can plainly see that the guard is on the opposite end of the store. It's harder to steal (and easier to be caught) if anyone and everyone is a potential security guard incognito.

How big are these places? Two guards can't cover one store? One of them can't be in uniform.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

They had control of the situation,

An utterly preposterous claim. If a bystander assaults the perp you are trying to restrain, you do not have control of the situation.

If you want, you can assault a perp being arrested by a real cop. This should amply demonstrate to you what actual control of a situation is.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

but they can't control every bystander present.

They would have had a much better chance if they had had used some implement of authority, such as identification as an authority, a uniform (which, of course, identifies you as such), or a weapon.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

But that jackass shouldn't have gotten involved.

The guy who stood on his ankle? No kidding. I'm an extremely peaceable type, but there are just some people who deserve to get a little worked over by the cops. ********* the dancer is one of them.

Jumping on someone's ankle is a far worse crime than stealing a bottle of crap vodka BTW.

As an aside, how's the whole state run liquor store working for ya? Did it achieve whatever it set out to do? It always struck me as commie idea.

As another aside, since when did the feminine hygiene implements make the censor?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

How big are these places? Two guards can't cover one store? One of them can't be in uniform.

Most LCBOs in the city are about as large as The Gap. I'm surprised they have more than one, really. I'm guessing that only 1 guard was from the LCBO and the others were general mall security.

Originally Posted by subego 

As an aside, how's the whole state run liquor store working for ya? Did it achieve whatever it set out to do? It always struck me as commie idea.

Depends on who you ask. Liquor laws in Canada vary widely from province to province. I'd prefer a free market in booze like Quebec. Conservatives in Ontario made some noises a few years back about privatization, but there wouldn't be much tangible benefit: the LCBO is self-funded from sales, so the taxpayer isn't being screwed. Province control of liquor is a holdover from the prohibition era, but no one does anything about it because it isn't an election-worthy issue.

Commie? Given that the LCBO was a 1930s-era conservative policy initiative, I don't think communism was the motivation. More likely, puritan Protestantism.

Originally Posted by subego 

As another aside, since when did the feminine hygiene implements make the censor?

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Most LCBOs in the city are about as large as The Gap. I'm surprised they have more than one, really. I'm guessing that only 1 guard was from the LCBO and the others were general mall security.

So it was in a mall then? One uniformed mall security guard could have avoided the whole issue. This also brings up my oringinal question, these guys don't have radios?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

the LCBO is self-funded from sales, so the taxpayer isn't being screwed.

'cept if you cant's get yer sauce when you need it.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Commie? Given that the LCBO was a 1930s-era conservative policy initiative, I don't think communism was the motivation. More likely, puritan Protestantism.

Augggh! Even worse!

Edit: this is really interesting though. Thanks for the info. I see state run and I think commie. What this makes me curious about now though, is how does the pricing structure work? Are prices the same at the LCBO as they are in a free market liquor store?

Further, if the prices are competitive, which I assume they are because no one is complaining, is this because they intentionally ape the free market price?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I called the dancing dude a douch*bag, which comes out as *********.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by subego 

So it was in a mall then? One uniformed mall security guard could have avoided the whole issue. This also brings up my oringinal question, these guys don't have radios?



'cept if you cant's get yer sauce when you need it.



Augggh! Even worse!

Edit: this is really interesting though. Thanks for the info. I see state run and I think commie. What this makes me curious about now though, is how does the pricing structure work? Are prices the same at the LCBO as they are in a free market liquor store?

Further, if the prices are competitive, which I assume they are because no one is complaining, is this because they intentionally ape the free market price?



I called the dancing dude a douch*bag, which comes out as *********.

The bystander had no right to try and intervene. He should be arrested for assault as far as I'm concerned.

As for state run, we have provinces, no states, call it province run, but not state run.

And seriously, I'd rather have people not being allowed to buy liquor beyond 10 pm (other than bars of course). Just makes things a bit safer that way.

[FireWire]

I hope this leads to sanctions against those guards.. You can't punch people repeatedly with your fist when the person didn't hit you first.. And since they were not identified as security guards or police officers, you can actually try to defend yourself.. If two random guys tried to pin me down, I sure would try to fight back. And if I had been a witness of this incident, the guy throwing the punches would probably heard from me...

[Blasphemy]

The guy is a POS thief. A few punches to the face will teach him a lesson.

[subego]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

You can't punch people repeatedly with your fist when the person didn't hit you first.

If you grapple with someone you have "hit" them.

As someone stupid enough to have hit himself in the head with a police baton, I can also say that the fist is preferable to the baton.

The most "humane" option would have been to just pepper spray the guy, but the way people scream once they've been sprayed would make it only more likely that I would want to intervene to help the perp.

Likewise, I could see pepper spray being bad in an enclosed mall.

[FireWire]

The punch were totally unjustified. 1° they weren't identified as security guard, so he didn't have to obey them (would you obey complete strangers?) 2° the punches weren't meant to subdue him but purely harm him, because they were pissed off.

This reminds me of the Taser incident at the library. "Obey us or we will hurt you". Smells power trip to me. Unless you deal with real police officers, you don't have to obey anyone. Well, you can face other consequences, bur they can't hurt you for disobeying.

[Eug Wanker]

Meh. The guy deserved it.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker 

Meh. The guy deserved it.

Hum, last time I checked, the penalty for shoplifting was a few hundreds bucks and maybe some prison time.

Come on, he stole a good valued at 30$ max, he doesn't deserve to get beaten down like he jumped the guard's sister..

[subego]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

The punch were totally unjustified. 1° they weren't identified as security guard, so he didn't have to obey them (would you obey complete strangers?)

Did the tape start early enough for you to unequivocally state they didn't identify themselves? Also note that I have said that they should have had some way of identifying themselves as an authority.

As to whether I would listen to unidentified strangers or not, all I can say with any surety is that it would be highly dependent upon whether I had just jacked a bottle from a liquor store.

Originally Posted by FireWire 

2° the punches weren't meant to subdue him but purely harm him, because they were pissed off.

Mind reader, are we?

Originally Posted by FireWire

Come on, he stole a good valued at 30$ max

They were beating/subduing him for resisting.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by subego 

Did the tape start early enough for you to unequivocally state they didn't identify themselves?

Well, as LCBO changed their policy, I assumed the problem resided here. Also, the first paragraph talks about an identity mix-up.

Originally Posted by subego

Mind reader, are we?

With the velocity/force these punches were administered, they were clearly meant to harm. They weren't strategically placed to subdue, they were straight, full-force blow to the closest available body part. He was already on the ground and wasn't hitting them. They should know proper technique to subdue someone without the use of excessive force. These punch were more a meaning for "will you stop moving, you motherf*cker!"

Originally Posted by subego

They were beating/subduing him for resisting.

As I said, you cannot beat someone for not obeying you. You're not a police officer, you don't have any authority. You can try to, but you cannot punish for failing to obeying you.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Well, as LCBO changed their policy...

...but not because of the way the guards treated the thief. They're more concerned about how the bystanders couldn't understand the situation, and didn't know who the good guys were.

[subego]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

As I said, you cannot beat someone for not obeying you. You're not a police officer, you don't have any authority. You can try to, but you cannot punish for failing to obeying you.

Well if that's the law then that's the law.

Just so we're on the same page though. These people have the authority to detain someone, but have no authority to use any force whatsoever?

No wonder things are screwed up.

[FireWire]

You can detain them but I don't think you have unlimited rights to do so. Yes they can use reasonnable force to detain them, like wrestling the suspect to the ground, etc. But the blows were totally unjustified. If you hit first, then you are the one assaulting the other.

And for lpkmckenna: I don't think there is any good guy here. Who's the worst? The broke guy that steals 30$ or the guy that beat the crap out of him for doing so? Is it worth hurting someone for 30$?

[subego]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Who's the worst?

I'm working on the rest of the response here, but I can say with absolute authority that the worst is the dude who jumps on the perp's ankle.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm working on the rest of the response here, but I can say with absolute authority that the worst is the dude who jumps on the perp's ankle.

I agree with you!


[Edit]
Just to clarify what I meant in better terms, I think the violence wasn't justified because the guy didn't have any weapon, wasn't a threat to anyone and did not pose danger. All they had to do was to detain him, and as they were 2 guys, that shouldn't have been hard without resorting to these methods.

[amsalpemkcus]

Jeez. That could have turned even uglier if that dude had some friends nearby.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

And for lpkmckenna: I don't think there is any good guy here. Who's the worst? The broke guy that steals 30$ or the guy that beat the crap out of him for doing so? Is it worth hurting someone for 30$?

I think you're wrong. The security guards are clearly the good guys.

The thief was resisting, and he got a couple of punches for his efforts. (I strongly suspect the thief was doing something we can't see to provoke it, like biting.) Frankly, I shed no tears for him.

[kmkkid]

The Security guard made two body shots, which I believe they are taught to use, and knock the wind out of the perp. to subdue them.


I see nothing wrong here, they were actually less violent than I've seen some guards be.

[Dark Helmet]

Which LCBO was this at?

Why are they making the thief sound like the victim with the "This poor soul"?