As long as he didn't use unreasonable force to detain them he did not commit assault and battery. No one would do a citizens arrest if they had to worry if the person turned out to be innocent, he/she would get sued.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Teenagers Banned from Apple Store
- Thread starter ProwlingTiger
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As long as he didn't use unreasonable force to detain them he did not commit assault and battery. No one would do a citizens arrest if they had to worry if the person turned out to be innocent, he/she would get sued.
Hacking iPhones is vandalism. Voiding the warranty, it renders the phone unsuitable for resale as a refurbished unit. Therefore, two youths entered the store and inflicted roughly $800 in damage and attempted to exit unnoticed.
An Apple Fugitive is the worse punishment to a Mac user.
An Apple Fugitive is the worse punishment to a Mac user.
And, did you buy one then and there? By your logic above, if you didn't, then you didn't deserve to be in the store in the first place.
Yes, there's a line between "trying with intent to learn" and "goofing off".
Yes, in fact I did buy it there! That day. I also bought a substantial amount of software and an ipod for my daughter (who, by the way was also thoroughly disgusted with the behavior of these upstanding young citizens). I'm sorry, but these kids had absolutely no intension to buy anything. They were rude, noisy, and acting as if they were entitled to do so. They were there for free internet and chats. I fail to see how you think my logic is flawed in any case. No matter where I bought it. The point is, I bought it from Apple.
I agree with you, but Apple did design the store to be a place to hang out. Steve Jobs said it himself.
I did see an article where an Apple spokesman did say that they did not ban the kids from the store.
It puts a little different spin on things. I think they were still wrong but Apple employees overreacted.
Some of posts in this thread truly scare me. 
1. Installing 3rd party software on the iPhone is not vandalism, they did not damage the phones. I hardly doubt "vandalism" would hold up in court.
Either way:
2. The manager forcing them to come back into the store and stay there falls under kidnapping and false imprisonment laws. This goes the same for things like shoplifting. If you are detained for shoplifting and did not actually shoplift, you can sue the pants off (and win) against the store for false imprisonment. If you did shoplift, various State merchant laws protect the merchant during special cases like shoplifting. If anyone (security, manager, etc) touches you while you leave (yes, just touches) even if you did something (shoplifted, vandalized), that is instantly battery and possibly assault. Very few States actually have laws that protect merchants from prosecution for assault & battery.
3. The kids should of kept walking away, they obviously did not know their rights. If the manager touched them, the kids could of had their parents sue for assault and battery. If the manager called the police, the police wouldn't do anything to the kids, as they did not violate any laws.
4. Obviously the manager was intimidating enough to get them to come back to the store instead of running away. The parents should sue Apple for false imprisonment and/or kidnapping depending on the State's definition of these offenses.
1. Installing 3rd party software on the iPhone is not vandalism, they did not damage the phones. I hardly doubt "vandalism" would hold up in court.
Either way:
2. The manager forcing them to come back into the store and stay there falls under kidnapping and false imprisonment laws. This goes the same for things like shoplifting. If you are detained for shoplifting and did not actually shoplift, you can sue the pants off (and win) against the store for false imprisonment. If you did shoplift, various State merchant laws protect the merchant during special cases like shoplifting. If anyone (security, manager, etc) touches you while you leave (yes, just touches) even if you did something (shoplifted, vandalized), that is instantly battery and possibly assault. Very few States actually have laws that protect merchants from prosecution for assault & battery.
3. The kids should of kept walking away, they obviously did not know their rights. If the manager touched them, the kids could of had their parents sue for assault and battery. If the manager called the police, the police wouldn't do anything to the kids, as they did not violate any laws.
4. Obviously the manager was intimidating enough to get them to come back to the store instead of running away. The parents should sue Apple for false imprisonment and/or kidnapping depending on the State's definition of these offenses.
Some of posts in this thread truly scare me.
1. Installing 3rd party software on the iPhone is not vandalism, they did not damage the phones. I hardly doubt "vandalism" would hold up in court.
Either way:
2. The manager forcing them to come back into the store and stay there falls under kidnapping and false imprisonment laws. This goes the same for things like shoplifting. If you are detained for shoplifting and did not actually shoplift, you can sue the pants off (and win) against the store for false imprisonment. If you did shoplift, various State merchant laws protect the merchant during special cases like shoplifting. If anyone (security, manager, etc) touches you while you leave (yes, just touches) even if you did something (shoplifted, vandalized), that is instantly battery and possibly assault. Very few States actually have laws that protect merchants from prosecution for assault & battery.
3. The kids should of kept walking away, they obviously did not know their rights. If the manager touched them, the kids could of had their parents sue for assault and battery. If the manager called the police, the police wouldn't do anything to the kids, as they did not violate any laws.
4. Obviously the manager was intimidating enough to get them to come back to the store instead of running away. The parents should sue Apple for false imprisonment and/or kidnapping depending on the State's definition of these offenses.
Parts of this post are simply untrue. The use of force in the detention of someone where the merchant has "probable cause" to reasonably and in good faith believe that shoplifting has occurred is permitted in most jurisdictions, up to and including (trained) personnel handcuffing the suspect. Store security personnel "detaining" someone in good faith and with probable cause can in no way constitute assault OR battery. The "victim" might be able to convince a jury in a CIVIL trial, but it's simply not a crime as long as the appropriate conditions are met. Note that in this Apple Store situation, it's unlikely that the store manager qualifies as appropriately "trained" personnel for this particular scenario, although the legal concept of "merchant's privilege" tend to be interpreted rather broadly in most places, and I don't know how Apple trains their store managers relative to loss prevention.
Yes, use of force in shoplifting is generally bad policy by the store and the whole use-of-force concept is fraught with legal ramifications, but it's simply not a crime. And yes, those ramifications tend to be especially problematic if the person didn't shoplift anything. That, in particular, looks bad in front of a civil jury.
If the person turn around and goes willingly the policy holds up well.
It is the innocent person that doesn't want anything other than to leave or gets scared and hurt trying to leave that causes all sorts of problems. Since they will most likely hire a lawyer and file criminal and civil complaints.
Even at Target I've avoided the LP and kept walking, mainly because the idiot sat there and watched me go through the checkout lane, pay, and still asked for a receipt.
It is irritating as crap when they follow you to your car asking for a receipt when they stood by and watched you pay the human at the register.
Edit: Yes I can see checking for UPC fraud on electronics, but not on a wiper blade for the car.
it *is* vandalism also
All that's necessary for vandalism is "screwing something up that doesn't belong to you, intentionally." The intent is the major part of it.
- Did the kids mess with the product? Yep
- On purpose? Yep
- Did they fix the thing before leaving or attempt to? Nope
Technically, that's vandalism.
These kids are just (like many today) uninformed on how to behave in public and graced with an extremely large sense of entitlement. The fact is they didn't care, nor even think about anything other than what they wanted to do. The idea that the stuff didn't belong to them or that they might be inconveniencing others just didn't' occur at all.
Fairly typical nowadays.
Agreed. And moreso ... the first point about what the kids did "not being vandalism" is also totally false.
All that's necessary for vandalism is "screwing something up that doesn't belong to you, intentionally." The intent is the major part of it.
- Did the kids mess with the product? Yep
- On purpose? Yep
- Did they fix the thing before leaving or attempt to? Nope
Technically, that's vandalism.
These kids are just (like many today) uninformed on how to behave in public and graced with an extremely large sense of entitlement. The fact is they didn't care, nor even think about anything other than what they wanted to do. The idea that the stuff didn't belong to them or that they might be inconveniencing others just didn't' occur at all.
Fairly typical nowadays.
They should've 'rm -rf /'ed as many macs as they could, i did this in my younger days at a PC world when I found they had no passwords on their macs
Damn that is the geekiest form of vandalism isn't it...
Some kids tagged, smashed windows, kicked in doors. I messed with shops display computers, eugh how sad.
Damn that is the geekiest form of vandalism isn't it...
Some kids tagged, smashed windows, kicked in doors. I messed with shops display computers, eugh how sad.
You misinterpreted my post.
In my post I recognized that some State laws protect merchants under certain circumstances such as shoplifting. While a merchant may detain you if they have probable cause you shoplifted (in some-NOT ALL-States), but if you didn't shoplift, that is false imprisonment if the merchant lacks evidence you had actually shoplifted. If you didn't shoplift, and they touched you, that is battery. It is as simple as that, look it up. While it is legally battery, damages may only be $1, the plaintiff would have to prove more damages, but this is battery none the less.
If you commit any sort of non-violent offense, there is little to no protection in most State laws for private individuals (security guards, managers, regular people, etc) to use any sort of force to stop you. If these individuals use this force, they are liable for assault and battery.
Yes, what they did was stupid and may meet your definition of vandalism. But (if) those iPhones can be fixed with a simple restore ($0 in actual damage), why should the kids have to bare public humility in front of the news, bystanders, Apple store employees, their friends, classmates, etc, and an unjustified encounter with the Police? Just like you, I hate the huge amount of people (not just younger people by the way) that don't care about stuff that doesn't belong to them. I got a nasty door ding in my new 2008 VW GTI, and the person that did it got away with it. The door ding will take $125 to pull out and even more to touch-up, and will never be like new. My door ding, unlike those iphones, will cost money to fix.
Apple store employees are very vigilant.
I was at the mall with my friend a few years ago and we went into the Apple Store since he wanted to buy some new headphones. We looked around for awhile then he picked up the headphones and paid for them. The cashier asked if he wanted a bag to which my friend declined.
On the way out, we were chased down by two employees accusing us of theft. Since he didn't have a bag for the item despite having paid, they immediately jumped to the conclusion we were thieves. He showed them the receipt and we were fine, but it does go to show they do have their eyes on everyone.
I was at the mall with my friend a few years ago and we went into the Apple Store since he wanted to buy some new headphones. We looked around for awhile then he picked up the headphones and paid for them. The cashier asked if he wanted a bag to which my friend declined.
On the way out, we were chased down by two employees accusing us of theft. Since he didn't have a bag for the item despite having paid, they immediately jumped to the conclusion we were thieves. He showed them the receipt and we were fine, but it does go to show they do have their eyes on everyone.
I don't understand the thrill of it. I mean. The first time it was funny, now its just like... oh, thats been done before. I seriously doubt Apple would completely ban them, but they deserved something. I mean, somebody has to re sync those phones now and such. Thats what makes Apple stores so nice, they keep all their machines neat and running well. I typically do my part at my local Best Buy by cleaning up the dock and desktop and such on their Mac's, I hate seeing Macs presented badly. I have even gone to the point of cleaning up iTouches Once I saw an iTouch with 8 pages of WebClips. Either way, teach them a lesson, it is Vandalism, period.
It wasn't necessarily YOUR logic I think is flawed, but the concept of "if you're not there to buy something/if you don't have the money, then you shouldn't be there at all" just doesn't fly -- there are just too many exceptions. What if you're there with the intent to possibly buy? Don't have the money yet but will next week, but wanted to check it out anyway? Will buy but will shop around for the best price, after playing with the product? Have an idea of what you want but don't have a specific brand or product in mind yet?
There's definitely something annoying about people playing on machines who have NO intent to buy and are simply mooching the free internet. These should be dealt with when it happens ("no loitering" signs and enforcement, maybe?)
and response from daughter issssssss
grrrrrrrrr those parental controls are nothing but misery to my online inter-web experiences, but shuffles are rather dandy and musically handy when shuffling about! thanks dad i heart my orange shuffle!
grrrrrrrrr those parental controls are nothing but misery to my online inter-web experiences, but shuffles are rather dandy and musically handy when shuffling about! thanks dad i heart my orange shuffle!
Yes I agree. Parental controls are sometimes used, (not always they can be quite good for the 14 revealing picture addict with to much time on their hands) to make parents feel like they can be even more of a dicatator in their home. The thing is all those hot headed arguments between teenagers and parents is creating a household democracy. How good could that be?
As for those rude, self centered, make old people hate our race, teenagers at apple stores I just want to share that it appalls me. Sure I go to the apple store when im short on cash just to look at what I can't have but I mean the second a person walks up behind me im out. Somebody needs to whip those kiddlings into shape. May I recommend my dad?
I think it is unfair to judge all nerdy teenagers that hang out at apple stores. Just give the snot face ones what they deserve and let us アプルおたく fantasize (I mean purchase) in peace.
Perhaps I did misinterpret. You're apparently not talking about criminal assault/battery, your talking about civil assaut/battery. The person would have to find an attorney willing to file a lawsuit against the merchant where the recovery might be $1. LOL at that concept.
If there was no injury, chances of getting anything out of the lawsuit are negligible. In fact, in that situation I would be astonished if ANY personal injury attorney would even take the case - there's no money in it. Likewise false imprisonment. Merchants are indeed protected from this, in civil AND criminal courts, as long as they can document probable cause that the person did shoplift. It doesn't matter whether or not they actually did, the store only needs to show probable cause to suspect that they did.
Not "my" definition, "the" definition. You don't have to use a crow bar or a bucket of paint to be a vandal, the degree of destruction is irrelevant, it's just the "screwing around with" part, period.
Well, because it's those consequences, that teach the kids the lesson, right? Now they have an excellent reason *not* to screw with other people's stuff again.
I think we should just agree to disagree here. You seem to be in agreement with me mostly, but not with the idea that the kids should have some kind of punishment/discipline attached to their actions.Just like you, I hate the huge amount of people (not just younger people by the way) that don't care about stuff that doesn't belong to them. I got a nasty door ding in my new 2008 VW GTI, and the person that did it got away with it. The door ding will take $125 to pull out and even more to touch-up, and will never be like new. My door ding, unlike those iphones, will cost money to fix.
This is kind of like the "hole" in your argument though. If the kids are never disciplined, then their attitudes will never change. So if, like me, you are decrying the attitude some kids have today (and it seems you are), then then answer is basically some kind of discipline/punishment or "down-side" to the kids actions.
Personally, I don't think involving the cops was the way to go. Adding cops to a situation almost never helps. At least where I live, the Cops are mostly just out for their own ends and go waay over the top in terms of "discipline" or consequences. they also don't seem to have a moral compass of their own in many cases. Once the kids had left the store, the manager should have let it go IMO. Several people have pointed out that the kids had no obligation to stop when the manager went after them. If it was me I would have been more vigilant and caught them red-handed in the store. Then the whole thing would have been clearer and the management's position much more solid.
They are probably basically good kids, but like many today, not brought up to have any responsibility for their actions (the "don't judge me" generation).
I bet their parents are almost completely absent in their lives and that their values come more from TV and movies than they do any family/home life to speak of.
Read and learn, Virgil...
http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vandalism
The general definition of vandalism is intentionally causing damage to property that belongs to someone else. The precise definition of what constitutes legal vandalism varies from place to place.
In this case, there is clearly intent and the property clearly did not belong to the kids. Was there any damage? That isn't so clear. By the sample vandalism statute I linked to, this case would not be vandalism since "serious physical harm" was not caused to the property. Obviously the police officer on the scene did not think this incident constituted vandalism in his/her jurisdiction or else the kids would have been arrested.
On the side thread--
Next time you see a bunch of teens giggling and playing in the Apple Store, by all means yell at them and chase them out. Perhaps this positive reinforcement will help them decide to become Windows users when they finally do have money. </sarcasm>
Seriously, I've seen more adults hogging Apple Store machines while surfing the net then I've seen kids doing what-ever. Most people, even kids, will yield the system if you politely say you are a serious buyer; at least, in my experience. I think people coming to The Apple Store to have fun is altogether a GOOD THING.
On the main thread-- yes, hacking a demo system-- totally against it.
Next time you see a bunch of teens giggling and playing in the Apple Store, by all means yell at them and chase them out. Perhaps this positive reinforcement will help them decide to become Windows users when they finally do have money. </sarcasm>
Seriously, I've seen more adults hogging Apple Store machines while surfing the net then I've seen kids doing what-ever. Most people, even kids, will yield the system if you politely say you are a serious buyer; at least, in my experience. I think people coming to The Apple Store to have fun is altogether a GOOD THING.
On the main thread-- yes, hacking a demo system-- totally against it.
Hacking the equipment would make the store managers a little unhappy, also, more work for the employees to have to restore the equipment.
They were just using some scare tactics. I'm sure it would be okay for the students to walk in alone to actually do business (instead of a group to "hang out" and "hack the equipment") or okay to walk in with a parent.
They were just using some scare tactics. I'm sure it would be okay for the students to walk in alone to actually do business (instead of a group to "hang out" and "hack the equipment") or okay to walk in with a parent.