Odd Dispute at Gun Store Call

[WmWhitfield]

A buddy is concerned about how an incident should have been handled by a store employee and the responding pd.

A civilian who had a deposit on a gun in DROS cancelled the buy and asked for a refund of his deposit. The gun store employee refunded all but the DROS fee and the manager was to rule the following day on whether to refund that amount. Simple up until now?

Employee then demanded customer to return the customer copy of the original sales transaction ticket. Customer refused. Employee said customer had no right to leave the premises with the ticket as he had bought nothing. Customer refused. Employee said he would call the police if it was not returned. Customer refused. Employee reached under his shirt and pulled out a cell phone and began to call PD. Employee didn't complete call and returned cell phone. Customer became alarmed and asked if employee was armed. Employee would not say. Customer said he was concerned for his safety and took out his cell to call pd. Employee then pulls his back out and calls pd. PD responds.

While awaiting PD, store employee stands in entrance door with one hand grasping left and right door jamb. Customer is in fear of being assaulted should customer attempt to leave the storel

PD advises this is clearly a civil matter and tells customer that he may leave.

Customer cancelled purchase because he suspected that gun sold as "new" and marked "new" on sales ticket was used. Assume his suspicion was reasonable.

Questions:

a. Was customer's detention protected by shopkeeper's privilege? I cannot see how it could apply since employee had no reasonable belief that customer was attempting to leave with any store property.

b. Is any fault to be attached to the PD? I see none.

c. Did employee commit a criminal act in that he intentionally and unlawfully threatened customer with grevious bodily harm (causing customer to realize that employee was carrying) should he leave the store?

[TRICKSTER]

a:Customer should contact a lawyer if he feels that he was unlawfully detained by the employee.
b:No
c:Where is the "intentionally and unlawfully threatened customer with grevious bodily harm" part of the story?

[9mmepiphany]

My response is the same as that above.

The employee's mistake was not getting the transaction ticket before handing out the refund.

I read the OP a couple of time and I don't see the intentionally and unlawfully threatened customer with grevious bodily harm either. The customer becoming alarmed sounds like a personal issue

[Bobby Ricigliano]

^^^This^^^

I would have handled it the same way. The customer's panties in a twist is not a criminal matter.

[geeknow]

I am in concurrence with the above.

[WmWhitfield]

Thanks for your thoughts. The hypo was constructed as such since this is a public forum.

As for the customer getting "his panties" in knot, based on the brief hypo such a mistaken conclusion is understandable and entitled to respect.

Details of how bodily arm was threatened have also been omitted for reasons that can't be explained but are made evident in video. In summary, after employee tells customer he has no right to have the sales ticket and the police are being called, employee flashes his concealed carry. The message customer, who is not security or law enforcement savvy, got was that this guy is about to go postal and is threatening to use that gun if he tries to leave the store.

When employee hangs up his cell in the midst of calling pd, then refuses to confirm that he is armed (customer knew from past contacts that it was customary for employee to conceal carry but hadn't thought of it until dispute turned hot), based pon totality of circumstances customer fears for personal safety and calls police. While dialing employee pulls cell back out, calls, and get through to pd while rattled customer is having trouble dialing. Surveillance video, especially rapidly escalating conduct, supports reasonableness of customer's belief that employee was dangerous and about to go "postal".

When LEOS arrive they ask customer what employee's complaint is and customer responds that the employee called pd because customer would not turn over sales ticket.

Customer has no problem with officers; either demeanor or performance of duties.

Should the employee have gotten the ticket before handing out the refund? Customer presented employee with a copy of the original duplicate sales ticket. Store has yet to refund DROS. It was customer's only documentation that the gun was sold as "new". Customer cancelled because information provided by third parties between time of purchase and cancellation indicated that the gun was not "new".

Whether customer was induced to purchase the gun by fraud was not an issue brought up with officers. Several false material statments were made by store employees prior to the sale being made. Issue of whether those statements were made with actaul knowledge of falsity or were mistake is not here an issue. As the issue was not raised the officers cannot be faulted in any way in regard to that.

In fact, customer has no issue with the officers, the pd, or the city. I was only asking to get a professional LEO perspective. While many civilians assume LEOS will never criticize other officers, I have found the opposite to be true with some exceptions. Customer is believed to feel the same.

[WmWhitfield]

a:Customer should contact a lawyer if he feels that he was unlawfully detained by the employee.
b:No
c:Where is the "intentionally and unlawfully threatened customer with grevious bodily harm" part of the story?

a. Customer contacted my lawyer. As related, the issue is if shopkeeper had a reasonable belief that customer was stealing store property. To myself the sales ticket became the customer's property when the store gave it to custormer days earlier upon purchase of gun. I was trying to gather if a LEO would consider a sales ticket to be store property and if it is the kind of store property the shopkeeper priviledge speaks to, if I may dangle my pariciple.

b. I agree as does everyone to my knowledge. The officers were great.

c. Threat is less direct than implied. Essentially, a rapid change if the demeanor of emp, statement that customer had no right to leave the store with sales ticket, employee calling police and drawing attention to concealed carry, then refusing to confirm that he was armed. That was perceived as a real threat by customer who then called pd to report the threat. Emp soon thereafter takes up position in exit while all waited for police.

[TRICKSTER]

Why do I get the feeling that, if I comment further, even more information will come out. It comes down to this, from what you have posted, this is not a LEO matter, it is a civil dispute. Your "buddy" has contacted a lawyer about his concerns. Case closed.

[NytWolf]

As for the customer getting "his panties" in knot, based on the brief hypo such a mistaken conclusion is understandable and entitled to respect.

Details of how bodily arm was threatened have also been omitted for reasons that can't be explained but are made evident in video. In summary, after employee tells customer he has no right to have the sales ticket and the police are being called, employee flashes his concealed carry. The message customer, who is not security or law enforcement savvy, got was that this guy is about to go postal and is threatening to use that gun if he tries to leave the store.

This brings up two points that I find unreasonable in the customer.

1. Why does the customer want to keep the original sales receipt?
2. Customer is overreacting when he sees the concealed weapon being "flashed".

First, if the customer does not want to return the original sales receipt, one can only assume the customer has an ulterior motive. If there were no merchandise changing hands, why would the customer care about the receipt? A receipt is to protect me, as a customer, a purchaser of goods, for later on down the line. In this case, there was no goods purchased -- no receipt for me.

Secondly, any time any reasonable person enters a gun shop's premises, that person is to assume the employees are armed. When a person receives a LTC, I can safely assume that the person is educated of self-defense laws or face big consequences in the end. My first intuition is an employee is not going to draw on me over a receipt. That would become extortion. Hence, the customer in this "hypo" has overreacted when he saw the gun.

Even though the customer has already contacted an attorney, I don't see how the customer has a case. Sorry, I'm with the employee on this one.

[kemasa]

This brings up two points that I find unreasonable in the customer.

I guess it depends on your view. I see it quite the opposite.

1. Why does the customer want to keep the original sales receipt?
2. Customer is overreacting when he sees the concealed weapon being "flashed".

First, if the customer does not want to return the original sales receipt, one can only assume the customer has an ulterior motive. If there were no merchandise changing hands, why would the customer care about the receipt?

As was stated above, the customer was told that the firearm was new, but had reason to believe that it was used. The receipt is proof of the fraud. The customer was not getting the complete refund either, the DROS fee had not been returned. The receipt would be evidence that they should give the complete refund if the firearm was actually used.

When I have returned items, I get the original receipt back, even if it has only one item on it, although it is marked that the item was returned. The customer has many reasons to keep the receipt.

On the other side, why is the employee so insistent that the receipt get returned? What is the employee trying to hide?

Secondly, any time any reasonable person enters a gun shop's premises, that person is to assume the employees are armed. When a person receives a LTC, I can safely assume that the person is educated of self-defense laws or face big consequences in the end. My first intuition is an employee is not going to draw on me over a receipt. Hence, the customer in this "hypo" has overreacted.

Please explain to me how it is reasonable for anyone to flash a firearm. This is not a movie or TV show. That type of behavior is unacceptable and is a threat. I believe the term which might apply is "brandishing".

Knowing that the person is armed is one thing, having the person show that they are armed is quite another. Also, the behavior with respect to the door is also not acceptable in my opinion. It could be considered that the employee was preventing the customer from leaving, which could be viewed as kidnapping (see OJ) especially since the receipt is not something which would be considered theft and was given to the customer. If it was that important, the employee should have demanded the receipt in order to issue the refund.

Even though the customer has already contacted an attorney, I don't see how the customer has a case. Sorry, I'm with the employee on this one.

I don't know that there is a case, but the actions of the employee are wrong and if I was the owner I would have to seriously consider firing the employee for inappropriate behavior, in many ways. Showing deadly force to try to get a receipt is just plain wrong.

[Tripper]

I think the customer wanted to keep the receipt as it was the only thing that showed the store displayed a used item as new, which is deceitful at the very least and could lead to something along the lines of bait/switch, false advertisement, maybe even some degree of fraud

Therefore IF customer gave back "evidence" of this, and later attempted to do anything about it, the store of course never did such a thing and customer must have made it up, the item was clearly marked as used on the tag, (since there is no evidence otherwise now )

So, yes the customer has ulterior motive and is still protecting himself by keeping the receipt as proof if wrongful sales tactics instead of for warranty proof of purchase

This receipt also gives him
The reason for backing out as it shows this was the stores fault and not his own, maybe even now wants to get a gun elsewhere and has to show some exemption for 1/30 rule (if that is good cause for that anyway)

I wouldn't give up my only evidence against someone

Standing in front of me at a door, blocking my exit to safety, would not be a good idea

My bad, not LEO

[WmWhitfield]

This brings up two points that I find unreasonable in the customer.

1. Why does the customer want to keep the original sales receipt?
2. Customer is overreacting when he sees the concealed weapon being "flashed".

First, if the customer does not want to return the original sales receipt, one can only assume the customer has an ulterior motive. If there were no merchandise changing hands, why would the customer care about the receipt? A receipt is to protect me, as a customer, a purchaser of goods, for later on down the line. In this case, there was no goods purchased -- no receipt for me.

Secondly, any time any reasonable person enters a gun shop's premises, that person is to assume the employees are armed. When a person receives a LTC, I can safely assume that the person is educated of self-defense laws or face big consequences in the end. My first intuition is an employee is not going to draw on me over a receipt. That would become extortion. Hence, the customer in this "hypo" has overreacted when he saw the gun.

Even though the customer has already contacted an attorney, I don't see how the customer has a case. Sorry, I'm with the employee on this one.

Point 1. Customer wanted the transaction ticket for two reasons. To document that the gun had been sold to him as being new and as proof that the dealer had not refunded customer's full deposit. Perhaps the better question to ask is not why the customer wanted to keep the sales ticket, but why was employee so vehemently instant that customer could not keep it?

Point 2. Perhaps he over reacted. As for assuming that employees are armed, I failed to explain that the problem is when the employee draws attention to his carry at the same time that he tells the customer that he cannot leave with the document and that he is calling the police. Is that criminal? Almkost as if to say, "I am armed andyou had better not try to leave with that sales slip.

Did emp have a right to detain customer under the shopkeeper priviledge is the real issue and none of you made any attempt to answer the question, bu that may be fair since it is really a matter of civil and not crim law.

I was wondering if any would but none spotted the issue begged by the facts; se pc 518. had the sales ticket been surrenderd, it was a violation. As no property was obtained we have attempted extortion.

Enough, thank you for giving me your thinking based on the limited info I could share with you. BTW, I have some understanding as to why officers dislike hypos as they are too easily, and often unfairly, used to twist officers testimony.

[WmWhitfield]

After that last post I saw Trickster's (Correction by edit. I should have said Tripper not Trickster) latest. Bingo. Up until then I was a little disappointed in yout thinking, which was the product of my keeping the facts closely to the vest. It will take some digging and customer doesn't have all the resources but knows who does who has the forensics to tell if that gun is very much a used gun.

[tonyxcom]

Secondly, any time any reasonable person enters a gun shop's premises, that person is to assume the employees are armed. When a person receives a LTC, I can safely assume that the person is educated of self-defense laws or face big consequences in the end. My first intuition is an employee is not going to draw on me over a receipt. That would become extortion. Hence, the customer in this "hypo" has overreacted when he saw the gun.

You DO NOT need to have an LTC to conceal a firearm in your place of business, or if you have been given permission by the business owner. As such, one should not assume that anyone working in a gun store and carrying has received any form of firearms training.

[WmWhitfield]

You DO NOT need to have an LTC to conceal a firearm in your place of business, or if you have been given permission by the business owner. As such, one should not assume that anyone working in a gun store and carrying has received any form of firearms training.

That is correct tony and there is even case law where the owner of private property was found guilty, not sure what code section, of carrying a loaded firearm in the common area of an aparmtemnt building owned by him. In that instqance I seem to recall that the property owner not only openly carried a loaded weapon but he threatened a tenant's visitor with it. The problem here was not that the employee had a weapon, but threatened customer with using it.

This may be all wrong or since been reversed, but IIRC a very old Miranda decision, even if a civilian has not been arrested and an officer's weapon remains holstered, the civilian is considered to be under coercion by the mere fact he has been stopped by a uniformed and armed officer. That does not mean the civilian is then entitled to a Miranda, but coercion is assumed.