Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
The Neighborhood Watch!
()
Date: July 15, 2014 08:04AM
Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/leesburg/2014/07/15/virginia-sheriff-target-shoplifting/12663435/
WASHINGTON (AP) - Leesburg police say a Fairfax County Sheriff's Office employee will be charged with shoplifting in a case that drew attention after the Target security guard who reported the alleged crime was fired.
The sheriff's office employee has not been identified, and formal charges have yet to be filed.
Leesburg police say they identified a suspect a few days after the theft in late May and were awaiting word from Target on whether to proceed with charges. Police say they got that word from Target on Monday.
Police say the decision to fire the security guard was a corporate decision made by Target. Dallas Northington told The Washington Post that he was fired after Target told him he violated procedure by filling out paperwork before calling police.
Attachments:
http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/leesburg/2014/07/15/virginia-sheriff-target-shoplifting/12663435/
WASHINGTON (AP) - Leesburg police say a Fairfax County Sheriff's Office employee will be charged with shoplifting in a case that drew attention after the Target security guard who reported the alleged crime was fired.
The sheriff's office employee has not been identified, and formal charges have yet to be filed.
Leesburg police say they identified a suspect a few days after the theft in late May and were awaiting word from Target on whether to proceed with charges. Police say they got that word from Target on Monday.
Police say the decision to fire the security guard was a corporate decision made by Target. Dallas Northington told The Washington Post that he was fired after Target told him he violated procedure by filling out paperwork before calling police.
Attachments:
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Sad
()
Date: July 15, 2014 07:06PM
Robert H. Palmer, 50, of Leesburg, charged with two counts of petty larceny for alleged shoplifting from a Target store in Leesburg. The security officer who reported the incidents was fired by Target. (Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office)
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Target Security
()
Date: July 15, 2014 09:34PM
ARREST
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Crying Foul here!
()
Date: July 16, 2014 06:33AM
Wait a minute here, they fired the security guard at Target after he caught this Va. sheriff's employee shoplifting???
Ex-deputy charged in Leesburg Target shoplifting case
Posted by:
More Info
()
Date: July 16, 2014 06:44AM
Ex-deputy charged in Leesburg Target shoplifting case
http://www.insidenova.com/news/loudoun/ex-deputy-charged-in-leesburg-target-shoplifting-case/article_a5aef107-7167-5977-ad73-c9882b480656.html
A shoplifting case at the Leesburg Target store first reported in May is getting new, national attention and a reactivated Leesburg Police Department investigation resulted in a criminal charge Tuesday.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Dallas Northington, who worked almost eight years as an assets protection specialist for Target, said he was fired after reporting two incidents of apparent shoplifting in which the suspect shown on surveillance tape was recognized by his superiors as a Fairfax County deputy. Northington said he filed a complaint with the Leesburg Police Department as he did routinely in such cases. However, days later Northington was fired, told by his managers at Target that he had not followed company procedures.
Following the publication of Northington’s story Saturday, the Leesburg Police Department released a statement Monday afternoon about its involvement in the case.
According to the department, the initial complaint was filed at approximately 11 p.m. Tuesday, May 27. “The report was documented however, the reporting loss prevention officer did not witness the actual theft,” it said. During that investigation, “the individual involved in the alleged theft was positively identified as a Fairfax Sheriff’s Office employee.” On May 30, Leesburg investigators notified members of the Fairfax sheriff’s office about the report.
There the case stalled.
According to the LPD, “the criminal prosecution component has been reviewed by the Loudoun County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office and we were awaiting on contact from Target if it was their desire to prosecute the alleged theft.” Late Monday morning—following the publication of the article—the department was notified of Target’s intent to press criminal charges against the alleged shoplifter.
Tuesday morning the LPD announced that Robert H. Palmer Jr., 50, of Leesburg, was charged with two counts of petit larceny. He came to police headquarters to accept service of the warrants and was taken before a magistrate where he was released on a $5,000 unsecured bond.
He is set to appear in District Court Aug. 12.
Northington, a father of two, is still looking for a job. He also is being represented by Declan Leonard, an attorney with Cloudigy Law who specializes in employment law.
http://www.insidenova.com/news/loudoun/ex-deputy-charged-in-leesburg-target-shoplifting-case/article_a5aef107-7167-5977-ad73-c9882b480656.html
A shoplifting case at the Leesburg Target store first reported in May is getting new, national attention and a reactivated Leesburg Police Department investigation resulted in a criminal charge Tuesday.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Dallas Northington, who worked almost eight years as an assets protection specialist for Target, said he was fired after reporting two incidents of apparent shoplifting in which the suspect shown on surveillance tape was recognized by his superiors as a Fairfax County deputy. Northington said he filed a complaint with the Leesburg Police Department as he did routinely in such cases. However, days later Northington was fired, told by his managers at Target that he had not followed company procedures.
Following the publication of Northington’s story Saturday, the Leesburg Police Department released a statement Monday afternoon about its involvement in the case.
According to the department, the initial complaint was filed at approximately 11 p.m. Tuesday, May 27. “The report was documented however, the reporting loss prevention officer did not witness the actual theft,” it said. During that investigation, “the individual involved in the alleged theft was positively identified as a Fairfax Sheriff’s Office employee.” On May 30, Leesburg investigators notified members of the Fairfax sheriff’s office about the report.
There the case stalled.
According to the LPD, “the criminal prosecution component has been reviewed by the Loudoun County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office and we were awaiting on contact from Target if it was their desire to prosecute the alleged theft.” Late Monday morning—following the publication of the article—the department was notified of Target’s intent to press criminal charges against the alleged shoplifter.
Tuesday morning the LPD announced that Robert H. Palmer Jr., 50, of Leesburg, was charged with two counts of petit larceny. He came to police headquarters to accept service of the warrants and was taken before a magistrate where he was released on a $5,000 unsecured bond.
He is set to appear in District Court Aug. 12.
Northington, a father of two, is still looking for a job. He also is being represented by Declan Leonard, an attorney with Cloudigy Law who specializes in employment law.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
XwKjP
()
Date: July 16, 2014 07:31AM
Leesburg police and Target shouldn’t give a pass to a shoplifting suspect with a badge
https://trove.com/#me/content/s5cbc?chid=74257&_p=article_related[6]
DOES TARGET, a major retailer, have a policy of protecting shoplifters at its stores if they happen to carry a badge and a gun? And do police in Leesburg, where one Target store is located, have a similar policy?
Those questions arise from a flurry of stories by The Post’s Tom Jackman, who reported on a pair of shoplifting incidents at the Target store in Leesburg in May. The incidents, captured in high-quality video by surveillance cameras, somehow didn’t result in charges being pressed against the suspect, a Fairfax County sheriff’s deputy, for six weeks — until The Post’s stories appeared.
For weeks, the Target security officer who reported the shoplifting incidents to Leesburg police was aware that the suspect, Robert H. Palmer, was a sheriff’s deputy. His supervisors at Target also knew it. For weeks, according to the Target security officer, the Leesburg police also knew the man’s identity. And for weeks, neither Target nor the police acted.
Instead, the police stayed mum and Target fired its security officer, Dallas Northington, a married father of two children who worked for the company for eight years. A Target company spokeswoman told The Post that Mr. Northington had been fired for insubordination; supposedly, he’d failed to fill out the proper paperwork before taking the case to the police.
In fact, says Mr. Northington, he’d reported many shoplifting cases to the police over the years, using the same procedures he followed in this case. There was nothing exceptional about these two shoplifting cases, conveyed to the police in May — other than that the suspect was in law enforcement.
For his trouble, Mr. Northington, whose wife is pregnant with the couple’s third child, was dismissed on June 3. The same day, Mr. Palmer, the shoplifting suspect, retired from the Fairfax sheriff’s office, where he had worked for 20 years. His retirement, with full pension, may prevent any disciplinary action from being taken against him in the event he is convicted or pleads guilty on the two larceny charges, which were filed Monday.
And why only on Monday? The shoplifting incidents took place May 16 and May 27. According to Mr. Northington, his supervisor at Target was aware of both incidents; after the first incident, the supervisor had declined to confront the suspect, whom he thought he recognized as a law enforcement officer.
The Leesburg police have been aware of both incidents since May 27, when they saw the video footage of the incidents, in which the suspect’s face is clearly visible. According to Mr. Northington, a police sergeant who watched the video recognized the suspect, who lives in Leesburg. “This is pretty serious,” the sergeant said, according to Mr. Northington.
Yes, it is. It’s serious if law enforcement personnel get a pass on criminal conduct. It’s serious if a major retailer retaliates against an employee for doing his job. And it’s serious when police turn a blind eye to larceny until a newspaper shames them to acting.
https://trove.com/#me/content/s5cbc?chid=74257&_p=article_related[6]
DOES TARGET, a major retailer, have a policy of protecting shoplifters at its stores if they happen to carry a badge and a gun? And do police in Leesburg, where one Target store is located, have a similar policy?
Those questions arise from a flurry of stories by The Post’s Tom Jackman, who reported on a pair of shoplifting incidents at the Target store in Leesburg in May. The incidents, captured in high-quality video by surveillance cameras, somehow didn’t result in charges being pressed against the suspect, a Fairfax County sheriff’s deputy, for six weeks — until The Post’s stories appeared.
For weeks, the Target security officer who reported the shoplifting incidents to Leesburg police was aware that the suspect, Robert H. Palmer, was a sheriff’s deputy. His supervisors at Target also knew it. For weeks, according to the Target security officer, the Leesburg police also knew the man’s identity. And for weeks, neither Target nor the police acted.
Instead, the police stayed mum and Target fired its security officer, Dallas Northington, a married father of two children who worked for the company for eight years. A Target company spokeswoman told The Post that Mr. Northington had been fired for insubordination; supposedly, he’d failed to fill out the proper paperwork before taking the case to the police.
In fact, says Mr. Northington, he’d reported many shoplifting cases to the police over the years, using the same procedures he followed in this case. There was nothing exceptional about these two shoplifting cases, conveyed to the police in May — other than that the suspect was in law enforcement.
For his trouble, Mr. Northington, whose wife is pregnant with the couple’s third child, was dismissed on June 3. The same day, Mr. Palmer, the shoplifting suspect, retired from the Fairfax sheriff’s office, where he had worked for 20 years. His retirement, with full pension, may prevent any disciplinary action from being taken against him in the event he is convicted or pleads guilty on the two larceny charges, which were filed Monday.
And why only on Monday? The shoplifting incidents took place May 16 and May 27. According to Mr. Northington, his supervisor at Target was aware of both incidents; after the first incident, the supervisor had declined to confront the suspect, whom he thought he recognized as a law enforcement officer.
The Leesburg police have been aware of both incidents since May 27, when they saw the video footage of the incidents, in which the suspect’s face is clearly visible. According to Mr. Northington, a police sergeant who watched the video recognized the suspect, who lives in Leesburg. “This is pretty serious,” the sergeant said, according to Mr. Northington.
Yes, it is. It’s serious if law enforcement personnel get a pass on criminal conduct. It’s serious if a major retailer retaliates against an employee for doing his job. And it’s serious when police turn a blind eye to larceny until a newspaper shames them to acting.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
target loser
()
Date: July 16, 2014 03:51PM
How do they expect to convict the Deputy? The Target security guy is the one who caught him and would have to testify as a witness. But Target fired him.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
395runner
()
Date: July 16, 2014 07:23PM
It makes no sense why they would arrest the cop.
The police already had the witness fired. If the witness does not recant the cops will flake him on a fake drug arrest, if he still tells the truth they will kill a family member.
It is impossible to convict the cop, so why are they even pretending?
The police already had the witness fired. If the witness does not recant the cops will flake him on a fake drug arrest, if he still tells the truth they will kill a family member.
It is impossible to convict the cop, so why are they even pretending?
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Not a fan
()
Date: July 17, 2014 11:27PM
Perhaps if the sheriff actually did the job elected to do instead of spending so much time on Facebook trying to be popular things wouldn't slide like this. Word is she can't really do the job and needs a lot of hand holding and tissue for her cry baby days.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
so sad
()
Date: July 18, 2014 01:30AM
Not a fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps if the sheriff actually did the job
> elected to do instead of spending so much time on
> Facebook trying to be popular things wouldn't
> slide like this. Word is she can't really do the
> job and needs a lot of hand holding and tissue for
> her cry baby days.
sheriff had nothing to do with this. the deputy knew he was caught so he retired. sheriff cant do a thing about that. Deputy is going to be criminally charged so all is good.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps if the sheriff actually did the job
> elected to do instead of spending so much time on
> Facebook trying to be popular things wouldn't
> slide like this. Word is she can't really do the
> job and needs a lot of hand holding and tissue for
> her cry baby days.
sheriff had nothing to do with this. the deputy knew he was caught so he retired. sheriff cant do a thing about that. Deputy is going to be criminally charged so all is good.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
3HGnW
()
Date: July 18, 2014 07:16AM
Not a fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps if the sheriff actually did the job
> elected to do instead of spending so much time on
> Facebook trying to be popular things wouldn't
> slide like this. Word is she can't really do the
> job and needs a lot of hand holding and tissue for
> her cry baby days.
The sheriff in Loudoun County where this took place is male, not that silly female sheriff you have in Fairfax.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps if the sheriff actually did the job
> elected to do instead of spending so much time on
> Facebook trying to be popular things wouldn't
> slide like this. Word is she can't really do the
> job and needs a lot of hand holding and tissue for
> her cry baby days.
The sheriff in Loudoun County where this took place is male, not that silly female sheriff you have in Fairfax.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
tbL6J
()
Date: July 18, 2014 07:17AM
If that security sues Target, they will surely lose. The security guard was simply doing his job. By not enforcing the law, and choosing to protect the suspect, Target has opened themselves up for a nasty civil suit.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Where is the Justice?
()
Date: July 18, 2014 11:40AM
So deputies who steal are above the law???
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Sheriff Stacey Kincaid
()
Date: July 18, 2014 12:44PM
Its called Shop with a Sheriff ass holes. We have been doing it for years. Y'all need to chill. Target never charged us before. That security guard should of got fired. Nick I love this picture of you. You look so much like your daddy.
Anybody have any functions coming up. I doesn't have to do anything with the sheriffs office. I can't stand being in my office.
Attachments:
Anybody have any functions coming up. I doesn't have to do anything with the sheriffs office. I can't stand being in my office.
Attachments:
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Sheriff Stacey Kincaid = TROLL
()
Date: July 18, 2014 01:04PM
Sheriff Stacey Kincaid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its called Shop with a Sheriff ass holes. We have
> been doing it for years. Y'all need to chill.
> Target never charged us before. That security
> guard should of got fired. Nick I love this
> picture of you. You look so much like your
> daddy.
>
> Anybody have any functions coming up. I doesn't
> have to do anything with the sheriffs office. I
> can't stand being in my office.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its called Shop with a Sheriff ass holes. We have
> been doing it for years. Y'all need to chill.
> Target never charged us before. That security
> guard should of got fired. Nick I love this
> picture of you. You look so much like your
> daddy.
>
> Anybody have any functions coming up. I doesn't
> have to do anything with the sheriffs office. I
> can't stand being in my office.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
BI5
()
Date: July 18, 2014 01:19PM
Bsquad
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Why Shop Target
()
Date: July 18, 2014 01:36PM
Why would anyone still shop at Target? They hand out your credit card info to everyone, they invite criminals in to rob unarmed law-abiding people, and they fire someone for reporting a crooked cop? Three strikes for Target - never shopping there again!
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
idiots
()
Date: July 18, 2014 03:46PM
Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target has really strict rules that prohibit many of there AP personnel from acting. This is meant to discourage over zealous wanna be cops from getting the company sued. If he did in fact violate one of the AP procedures then the end result is termination. All AP personnel know the rules.
As for the police covering up, once again you are idiots if you believe that. They did not witness the misdemeanor offense and therefore could not arrest him without Targets cooperation. They could not file warrants until Target agreed to press charges. When Target agreed to press charges, LPD did there job.
As for the police covering up, once again you are idiots if you believe that. They did not witness the misdemeanor offense and therefore could not arrest him without Targets cooperation. They could not file warrants until Target agreed to press charges. When Target agreed to press charges, LPD did there job.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Gordon Blvd
()
Date: July 18, 2014 03:51PM
idiots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target has
> really strict rules that prohibit many of there AP
> personnel from acting. This is meant to
> discourage over zealous wanna be cops from getting
> the company sued. If he did in fact violate one
> of the AP procedures then the end result is
> termination. All AP personnel know the rules.
>
> As for the police covering up, once again you are
> idiots if you believe that. They did not witness
> the misdemeanor offense and therefore could not
> arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> could not file warrants until Target agreed to
> press charges. When Target agreed to press
> charges, LPD did there job.
+1
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target has
> really strict rules that prohibit many of there AP
> personnel from acting. This is meant to
> discourage over zealous wanna be cops from getting
> the company sued. If he did in fact violate one
> of the AP procedures then the end result is
> termination. All AP personnel know the rules.
>
> As for the police covering up, once again you are
> idiots if you believe that. They did not witness
> the misdemeanor offense and therefore could not
> arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> could not file warrants until Target agreed to
> press charges. When Target agreed to press
> charges, LPD did there job.
+1
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Capt Obvious
()
Date: July 18, 2014 05:20PM
It's fairly obvious what happened here.
1. Officer Shoplifter retired on June 3rd.
2. Target decided to file charges on June 3rd.
3. Target waited to file charges until Officer Shoplifter retired, so the charge would not affect him or stop him from collecting retirement paychecks. If Target had filed charges just ONE day earlier, Officer Shoplifter would possibly LOSE all or some of his benefits.
4. Rational deduction says the Poh-leece called Target and asked them to hold off and do them (or, rather Officer Shoplifter) a favor. Looks like they were successful.
1. Officer Shoplifter retired on June 3rd.
2. Target decided to file charges on June 3rd.
3. Target waited to file charges until Officer Shoplifter retired, so the charge would not affect him or stop him from collecting retirement paychecks. If Target had filed charges just ONE day earlier, Officer Shoplifter would possibly LOSE all or some of his benefits.
4. Rational deduction says the Poh-leece called Target and asked them to hold off and do them (or, rather Officer Shoplifter) a favor. Looks like they were successful.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
()
Date: July 18, 2014 05:39PM
idiots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target has
> really strict rules that prohibit many of there AP
> personnel from acting. This is meant to
> discourage over zealous wanna be cops from getting
> the company sued. If he did in fact violate one
> of the AP procedures then the end result is
> termination. All AP personnel know the rules.
>
> As for the police covering up, once again you are
> idiots if you believe that. They did not witness
> the misdemeanor offense and therefore could not
> arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> could not file warrants until Target agreed to
> press charges. When Target agreed to press
> charges, LPD did there job.
They have it on video, how is that not evidence fucknuts?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target has
> really strict rules that prohibit many of there AP
> personnel from acting. This is meant to
> discourage over zealous wanna be cops from getting
> the company sued. If he did in fact violate one
> of the AP procedures then the end result is
> termination. All AP personnel know the rules.
>
> As for the police covering up, once again you are
> idiots if you believe that. They did not witness
> the misdemeanor offense and therefore could not
> arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> could not file warrants until Target agreed to
> press charges. When Target agreed to press
> charges, LPD did there job.
They have it on video, how is that not evidence fucknuts?
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
GRRRRRR is a dumbshit
()
Date: July 18, 2014 07:09PM
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> idiots Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target
> has
> > really strict rules that prohibit many of there
> AP
> > personnel from acting. This is meant to
> > discourage over zealous wanna be cops from
> getting
> > the company sued. If he did in fact violate
> one
> > of the AP procedures then the end result is
> > termination. All AP personnel know the rules.
> >
> > As for the police covering up, once again you
> are
> > idiots if you believe that. They did not
> witness
> > the misdemeanor offense and therefore could not
> > arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> > could not file warrants until Target agreed to
> > press charges. When Target agreed to press
> > charges, LPD did there job.
>
> They have it on video, how is that not evidence
> fucknuts?
Obviously you have no legal training if you think a video proves anything in court dumbshit. Like I said Target is the victim and there is not prosecution unless the victim wants to proceed. This is especially true with shoplifting. Stop watching Judge Judy for your legal training.
-------------------------------------------------------
> idiots Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target
> has
> > really strict rules that prohibit many of there
> AP
> > personnel from acting. This is meant to
> > discourage over zealous wanna be cops from
> getting
> > the company sued. If he did in fact violate
> one
> > of the AP procedures then the end result is
> > termination. All AP personnel know the rules.
> >
> > As for the police covering up, once again you
> are
> > idiots if you believe that. They did not
> witness
> > the misdemeanor offense and therefore could not
> > arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> > could not file warrants until Target agreed to
> > press charges. When Target agreed to press
> > charges, LPD did there job.
>
> They have it on video, how is that not evidence
> fucknuts?
Obviously you have no legal training if you think a video proves anything in court dumbshit. Like I said Target is the victim and there is not prosecution unless the victim wants to proceed. This is especially true with shoplifting. Stop watching Judge Judy for your legal training.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Uh no...
()
Date: July 18, 2014 07:15PM
GRRRRRR is a dumbshit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > idiots Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target
> > has
> > > really strict rules that prohibit many of
> there
> > AP
> > > personnel from acting. This is meant to
> > > discourage over zealous wanna be cops from
> > getting
> > > the company sued. If he did in fact violate
> > one
> > > of the AP procedures then the end result is
> > > termination. All AP personnel know the
> rules.
> > >
> > > As for the police covering up, once again you
> > are
> > > idiots if you believe that. They did not
> > witness
> > > the misdemeanor offense and therefore could
> not
> > > arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> > > could not file warrants until Target agreed
> to
> > > press charges. When Target agreed to press
> > > charges, LPD did there job.
> >
> > They have it on video, how is that not evidence
> > fucknuts?
>
>
> Obviously you have no legal training if you think
> a video proves anything in court dumbshit. Like I
> said Target is the victim and there is not
> prosecution unless the victim wants to proceed.
> This is especially true with shoplifting. Stop
> watching Judge Judy for your legal training.
And you need to join us in the 21st Century...
§ 19.2-81. Arrest without warrant authorized in certain cases.
A. The following officers shall have the powers of arrest as provided in this section:
1. Members of the State Police force of the Commonwealth;
2. Sheriffs of the various counties and cities, and their deputies;
3. Members of any county police force or any duly constituted police force of any city or town of the Commonwealth;
4. The Commissioner, members and employees of the Marine Resources Commission granted the power of arrest pursuant to § 28.2-900;
5. Regular conservation police officers appointed pursuant to § 29.1-200;
6. United States Coast Guard and United States Coast Guard Reserve commissioned, warrant, and petty officers authorized under § 29.1-205 to make arrests;
7. Conservation officers appointed pursuant to § 10.1-115;
8. Full-time sworn members of the enforcement division of the Department of Motor Vehicles appointed pursuant to § 46.2-217;
9. Special agents of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and
10. Campus police officers appointed under Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23.
B. Such officers may arrest without a warrant any person who commits any crime in the presence of the officer and any person whom he has reasonable grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed a felony not in his presence.
Such officers may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to suspect of operating any watercraft or motorboat while (i) intoxicated in violation of subsection B of § 29.1-738 or a substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town in the Commonwealth or (ii) in violation of an order issued pursuant to § 29.1-738.4 and may thereafter transfer custody of the person arrested to another officer, who may obtain a warrant based upon statements made to him by the arresting officer.
C. Any such officer may, at the scene of any accident involving a motor vehicle, watercraft as defined in § 29.1-733.2 or motorboat, or at any hospital or medical facility to which any person involved in such accident has been transported, or in the apprehension of any person charged with the theft of any motor vehicle, on any of the highways or waters of the Commonwealth, upon reasonable grounds to believe, based upon personal investigation, including information obtained from eyewitnesses, that a crime has been committed by any person then and there present, apprehend such person without a warrant of arrest. For purposes of this section, "the scene of any accident" shall include a reasonable location where a vehicle or person involved in an accident has been moved at the direction of a law-enforcement officer to facilitate the clearing of the highway or to ensure the safety of the motoring public.
D. Such officers may, within three hours of the alleged offense, arrest without a warrant at any location any person whom the officer has probable cause to suspect of driving or operating a motor vehicle, watercraft or motorboat while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, 46.2-341.24, or subsection B of § 29.1-738; or a substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town in the Commonwealth, whether or not the offense was committed in such officer's presence. Such officers may, within three hours of the alleged offense, arrest without a warrant at any location any person whom the officer has probable cause to suspect of operating a watercraft or motorboat in violation of an order issued pursuant to § 29.1-738.4, whether or not the offense was committed in such officer's presence.
E. Such officers may arrest, without a warrant or a capias, persons duly charged with a crime in another jurisdiction upon receipt of a photocopy of a warrant or a capias, telegram, computer printout, facsimile printout, a radio, telephone or teletype message, in which photocopy of a warrant, telegram, computer printout, facsimile printout, radio, telephone or teletype message shall be given the name or a reasonably accurate description of such person wanted and the crime alleged.
F. Such officers may arrest, without a warrant or a capias, for an alleged misdemeanor not committed in his presence when the officer receives a radio message from his department or other law-enforcement agency within the Commonwealth that a warrant or capias for such offense is on file.
G. Such officers may also arrest without a warrant for an alleged misdemeanor not committed in their presence involving (i) shoplifting in violation of § 18.2-96 or 18.2-103 or a similar local ordinance, (ii) carrying a weapon on school property in violation of § 18.2-308.1, (iii) assault and battery, (iv) brandishing a firearm in violation of § 18.2-282, or (v) destruction of property in violation of § 18.2-137, when such property is located on premises used for business or commercial purposes, or a similar local ordinance, when any such arrest is based on probable cause upon reasonable complaint of the person who observed the alleged offense. The arresting officer may issue a summons to any person arrested under this section for a misdemeanor violation involving shoplifting.
(Code 1950, § 19.1-100; 1960, c. 366; 1974, c. 241; 1975, c. 495; 1976, cc. 515, 570; 1977, c. 97; 1979, c. 268; 1982, c. 272; 1983, c. 206; 1984, c. 534; 1985, c. 507; 1988, cc. 353, 744, 752, 853; 1989, c. 726; 1990, cc. 635, 744, 784; 1995, c. 465; 1996, cc. 866, 929, 1015; 1998, c. 684; 2004, c. 949; 2005, cc. 88, 435; 2008, cc. 460, 737; 2010, c. 840; 2011, cc. 510, 643; 2012, c. 776; 2013, c. 787; 2014, c. 543.)
-------------------------------------------------------
> GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > idiots Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target
> > has
> > > really strict rules that prohibit many of
> there
> > AP
> > > personnel from acting. This is meant to
> > > discourage over zealous wanna be cops from
> > getting
> > > the company sued. If he did in fact violate
> > one
> > > of the AP procedures then the end result is
> > > termination. All AP personnel know the
> rules.
> > >
> > > As for the police covering up, once again you
> > are
> > > idiots if you believe that. They did not
> > witness
> > > the misdemeanor offense and therefore could
> not
> > > arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> > > could not file warrants until Target agreed
> to
> > > press charges. When Target agreed to press
> > > charges, LPD did there job.
> >
> > They have it on video, how is that not evidence
> > fucknuts?
>
>
> Obviously you have no legal training if you think
> a video proves anything in court dumbshit. Like I
> said Target is the victim and there is not
> prosecution unless the victim wants to proceed.
> This is especially true with shoplifting. Stop
> watching Judge Judy for your legal training.
And you need to join us in the 21st Century...
§ 19.2-81. Arrest without warrant authorized in certain cases.
A. The following officers shall have the powers of arrest as provided in this section:
1. Members of the State Police force of the Commonwealth;
2. Sheriffs of the various counties and cities, and their deputies;
3. Members of any county police force or any duly constituted police force of any city or town of the Commonwealth;
4. The Commissioner, members and employees of the Marine Resources Commission granted the power of arrest pursuant to § 28.2-900;
5. Regular conservation police officers appointed pursuant to § 29.1-200;
6. United States Coast Guard and United States Coast Guard Reserve commissioned, warrant, and petty officers authorized under § 29.1-205 to make arrests;
7. Conservation officers appointed pursuant to § 10.1-115;
8. Full-time sworn members of the enforcement division of the Department of Motor Vehicles appointed pursuant to § 46.2-217;
9. Special agents of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and
10. Campus police officers appointed under Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23.
B. Such officers may arrest without a warrant any person who commits any crime in the presence of the officer and any person whom he has reasonable grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed a felony not in his presence.
Such officers may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to suspect of operating any watercraft or motorboat while (i) intoxicated in violation of subsection B of § 29.1-738 or a substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town in the Commonwealth or (ii) in violation of an order issued pursuant to § 29.1-738.4 and may thereafter transfer custody of the person arrested to another officer, who may obtain a warrant based upon statements made to him by the arresting officer.
C. Any such officer may, at the scene of any accident involving a motor vehicle, watercraft as defined in § 29.1-733.2 or motorboat, or at any hospital or medical facility to which any person involved in such accident has been transported, or in the apprehension of any person charged with the theft of any motor vehicle, on any of the highways or waters of the Commonwealth, upon reasonable grounds to believe, based upon personal investigation, including information obtained from eyewitnesses, that a crime has been committed by any person then and there present, apprehend such person without a warrant of arrest. For purposes of this section, "the scene of any accident" shall include a reasonable location where a vehicle or person involved in an accident has been moved at the direction of a law-enforcement officer to facilitate the clearing of the highway or to ensure the safety of the motoring public.
D. Such officers may, within three hours of the alleged offense, arrest without a warrant at any location any person whom the officer has probable cause to suspect of driving or operating a motor vehicle, watercraft or motorboat while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, 46.2-341.24, or subsection B of § 29.1-738; or a substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town in the Commonwealth, whether or not the offense was committed in such officer's presence. Such officers may, within three hours of the alleged offense, arrest without a warrant at any location any person whom the officer has probable cause to suspect of operating a watercraft or motorboat in violation of an order issued pursuant to § 29.1-738.4, whether or not the offense was committed in such officer's presence.
E. Such officers may arrest, without a warrant or a capias, persons duly charged with a crime in another jurisdiction upon receipt of a photocopy of a warrant or a capias, telegram, computer printout, facsimile printout, a radio, telephone or teletype message, in which photocopy of a warrant, telegram, computer printout, facsimile printout, radio, telephone or teletype message shall be given the name or a reasonably accurate description of such person wanted and the crime alleged.
F. Such officers may arrest, without a warrant or a capias, for an alleged misdemeanor not committed in his presence when the officer receives a radio message from his department or other law-enforcement agency within the Commonwealth that a warrant or capias for such offense is on file.
G. Such officers may also arrest without a warrant for an alleged misdemeanor not committed in their presence involving (i) shoplifting in violation of § 18.2-96 or 18.2-103 or a similar local ordinance, (ii) carrying a weapon on school property in violation of § 18.2-308.1, (iii) assault and battery, (iv) brandishing a firearm in violation of § 18.2-282, or (v) destruction of property in violation of § 18.2-137, when such property is located on premises used for business or commercial purposes, or a similar local ordinance, when any such arrest is based on probable cause upon reasonable complaint of the person who observed the alleged offense. The arresting officer may issue a summons to any person arrested under this section for a misdemeanor violation involving shoplifting.
(Code 1950, § 19.1-100; 1960, c. 366; 1974, c. 241; 1975, c. 495; 1976, cc. 515, 570; 1977, c. 97; 1979, c. 268; 1982, c. 272; 1983, c. 206; 1984, c. 534; 1985, c. 507; 1988, cc. 353, 744, 752, 853; 1989, c. 726; 1990, cc. 635, 744, 784; 1995, c. 465; 1996, cc. 866, 929, 1015; 1998, c. 684; 2004, c. 949; 2005, cc. 88, 435; 2008, cc. 460, 737; 2010, c. 840; 2011, cc. 510, 643; 2012, c. 776; 2013, c. 787; 2014, c. 543.)
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
()
Date: July 18, 2014 07:22PM
GRRRRRR is a dumbshit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > idiots Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target
> > has
> > > really strict rules that prohibit many of
> there
> > AP
> > > personnel from acting. This is meant to
> > > discourage over zealous wanna be cops from
> > getting
> > > the company sued. If he did in fact violate
> > one
> > > of the AP procedures then the end result is
> > > termination. All AP personnel know the
> rules.
> > >
> > > As for the police covering up, once again you
> > are
> > > idiots if you believe that. They did not
> > witness
> > > the misdemeanor offense and therefore could
> not
> > > arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> > > could not file warrants until Target agreed
> to
> > > press charges. When Target agreed to press
> > > charges, LPD did there job.
> >
> > They have it on video, how is that not evidence
> > fucknuts?
>
>
> Obviously you have no legal training if you think
> a video proves anything in court dumbshit. Like I
> said Target is the victim and there is not
> prosecution unless the victim wants to proceed.
> This is especially true with shoplifting. Stop
> watching Judge Judy for your legal training.
Except that now the victim is the Target employee that was fired. He witnessed a crime being performed by a law enforcement officer. Under law, it was his responsibility to report this to the police. Target may have opted not to press charges, but now they've opened themselves up to a civil suit where the Target employee can make a realistic argument in court. Since he had done similiar paperwork before and not disciplined for it, Target is going to end up owing him some money in the end. Most likely settling out of court, now that this story is out in the open.
-------------------------------------------------------
> GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > idiots Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Some of you guys are absolute idiots. Target
> > has
> > > really strict rules that prohibit many of
> there
> > AP
> > > personnel from acting. This is meant to
> > > discourage over zealous wanna be cops from
> > getting
> > > the company sued. If he did in fact violate
> > one
> > > of the AP procedures then the end result is
> > > termination. All AP personnel know the
> rules.
> > >
> > > As for the police covering up, once again you
> > are
> > > idiots if you believe that. They did not
> > witness
> > > the misdemeanor offense and therefore could
> not
> > > arrest him without Targets cooperation. They
> > > could not file warrants until Target agreed
> to
> > > press charges. When Target agreed to press
> > > charges, LPD did there job.
> >
> > They have it on video, how is that not evidence
> > fucknuts?
>
>
> Obviously you have no legal training if you think
> a video proves anything in court dumbshit. Like I
> said Target is the victim and there is not
> prosecution unless the victim wants to proceed.
> This is especially true with shoplifting. Stop
> watching Judge Judy for your legal training.
Except that now the victim is the Target employee that was fired. He witnessed a crime being performed by a law enforcement officer. Under law, it was his responsibility to report this to the police. Target may have opted not to press charges, but now they've opened themselves up to a civil suit where the Target employee can make a realistic argument in court. Since he had done similiar paperwork before and not disciplined for it, Target is going to end up owing him some money in the end. Most likely settling out of court, now that this story is out in the open.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
GRRRR come on
()
Date: July 19, 2014 03:29PM
Uh no... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GRRRRRR is a dumbshit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > idiots Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Some of you guys are absolute idiots.
> Target
> > > has
> > > > really strict rules that prohibit many of
> > there
> > > AP
> > > > personnel from acting. This is meant to
> > > > discourage over zealous wanna be cops from
> > > getting
> > > > the company sued. If he did in fact
> violate
> > > one
> > > > of the AP procedures then the end result is
> > > > termination. All AP personnel know the
> > rules.
> > > >
> > > > As for the police covering up, once again
> you
> > > are
> > > > idiots if you believe that. They did not
> > > witness
> > > > the misdemeanor offense and therefore could
> > not
> > > > arrest him without Targets cooperation.
> They
> > > > could not file warrants until Target agreed
> > to
> > > > press charges. When Target agreed to press
> > > > charges, LPD did there job.
> > >
> > > They have it on video, how is that not
> evidence
> > > fucknuts?
> >
> >
> > Obviously you have no legal training if you
> think
> > a video proves anything in court dumbshit. Like
> I
> > said Target is the victim and there is not
> > prosecution unless the victim wants to proceed.
>
> > This is especially true with shoplifting. Stop
> > watching Judge Judy for your legal training.
>
> And you need to join us in the 21st Century...
>
> § 19.2-81. Arrest without warrant authorized in
> certain cases.
>
> A. The following officers shall have the powers of
> arrest as provided in this section:
>
> 1. Members of the State Police force of the
> Commonwealth;
>
> 2. Sheriffs of the various counties and cities,
> and their deputies;
>
> 3. Members of any county police force or any duly
> constituted police force of any city or town of
> the Commonwealth;
>
> 4. The Commissioner, members and employees of the
> Marine Resources Commission granted the power of
> arrest pursuant to § 28.2-900;
>
> 5. Regular conservation police officers appointed
> pursuant to § 29.1-200;
>
> 6. United States Coast Guard and United States
> Coast Guard Reserve commissioned, warrant, and
> petty officers authorized under § 29.1-205 to
> make arrests;
>
> 7. Conservation officers appointed pursuant to §
> 10.1-115;
>
> 8. Full-time sworn members of the enforcement
> division of the Department of Motor Vehicles
> appointed pursuant to § 46.2-217;
>
> 9. Special agents of the Department of Alcoholic
> Beverage Control; and
>
> 10. Campus police officers appointed under Chapter
> 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23.
>
> B. Such officers may arrest without a warrant any
> person who commits any crime in the presence of
> the officer and any person whom he has reasonable
> grounds or probable cause to suspect of having
> committed a felony not in his presence.
>
> Such officers may arrest without a warrant any
> person whom the officer has probable cause to
> suspect of operating any watercraft or motorboat
> while (i) intoxicated in violation of subsection B
> of § 29.1-738 or a substantially similar
> ordinance of any county, city, or town in the
> Commonwealth or (ii) in violation of an order
> issued pursuant to § 29.1-738.4 and may
> thereafter transfer custody of the person arrested
> to another officer, who may obtain a warrant based
> upon statements made to him by the arresting
> officer.
>
> C. Any such officer may, at the scene of any
> accident involving a motor vehicle, watercraft as
> defined in § 29.1-733.2 or motorboat, or at any
> hospital or medical facility to which any person
> involved in such accident has been transported, or
> in the apprehension of any person charged with the
> theft of any motor vehicle, on any of the highways
> or waters of the Commonwealth, upon reasonable
> grounds to believe, based upon personal
> investigation, including information obtained from
> eyewitnesses, that a crime has been committed by
> any person then and there present, apprehend such
> person without a warrant of arrest. For purposes
> of this section, "the scene of any accident" shall
> include a reasonable location where a vehicle or
> person involved in an accident has been moved at
> the direction of a law-enforcement officer to
> facilitate the clearing of the highway or to
> ensure the safety of the motoring public.
>
> D. Such officers may, within three hours of the
> alleged offense, arrest without a warrant at any
> location any person whom the officer has probable
> cause to suspect of driving or operating a motor
> vehicle, watercraft or motorboat while intoxicated
> in violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1,
> 46.2-341.24, or subsection B of § 29.1-738; or a
> substantially similar ordinance of any county,
> city, or town in the Commonwealth, whether or not
> the offense was committed in such officer's
> presence. Such officers may, within three hours of
> the alleged offense, arrest without a warrant at
> any location any person whom the officer has
> probable cause to suspect of operating a
> watercraft or motorboat in violation of an order
> issued pursuant to § 29.1-738.4, whether or not
> the offense was committed in such officer's
> presence.
>
> E. Such officers may arrest, without a warrant or
> a capias, persons duly charged with a crime in
> another jurisdiction upon receipt of a photocopy
> of a warrant or a capias, telegram, computer
> printout, facsimile printout, a radio, telephone
> or teletype message, in which photocopy of a
> warrant, telegram, computer printout, facsimile
> printout, radio, telephone or teletype message
> shall be given the name or a reasonably accurate
> description of such person wanted and the crime
> alleged.
>
> F. Such officers may arrest, without a warrant or
> a capias, for an alleged misdemeanor not committed
> in his presence when the officer receives a radio
> message from his department or other
> law-enforcement agency within the Commonwealth
> that a warrant or capias for such offense is on
> file.
>
> G. Such officers may also arrest without a warrant
> for an alleged misdemeanor not committed in their
> presence involving (i) shoplifting in violation of
> § 18.2-96 or 18.2-103 or a similar local
> ordinance, (ii) carrying a weapon on school
> property in violation of § 18.2-308.1, (iii)
> assault and battery, (iv) brandishing a firearm in
> violation of § 18.2-282, or (v) destruction of
> property in violation of § 18.2-137, when such
> property is located on premises used for business
> or commercial purposes, or a similar local
> ordinance, when any such arrest is based on
> probable cause upon reasonable complaint of the
> person who observed the alleged offense. The
> arresting officer may issue a summons to any
> person arrested under this section for a
> misdemeanor violation involving shoplifting.
>
> (Code 1950, § 19.1-100; 1960, c. 366; 1974, c.
> 241; 1975, c. 495; 1976, cc. 515, 570; 1977, c.
> 97; 1979, c. 268; 1982, c. 272; 1983, c. 206;
> 1984, c. 534; 1985, c. 507; 1988, cc. 353, 744,
> 752, 853; 1989, c. 726; 1990, cc. 635, 744, 784;
> 1995, c. 465; 1996, cc. 866, 929, 1015; 1998, c.
> 684; 2004, c. 949; 2005, cc. 88, 435; 2008, cc.
> 460, 737; 2010, c. 840; 2011, cc. 510, 643; 2012,
> c. 776; 2013, c. 787; 2014, c. 543.)
Simply pasting the VCC warrantless arrest statute does not validate your point. You must have PC to make an arrest. If you have no complaining witness then you cannot obtain PC. According to the report the reporting party did not directly witness the shoplifting offense. Which is probably why Target fired him for not following company procedure. Contrary to popular opinion many stores do not prosecute shoplifters unless the agent directly witnesses the alleged offense. Either way Target did not want to prosecute and at the time and therefore you cannot make a warrantless arrest. When Target decided to prosecute the arrest was made.
The fired employee does not become the victim because the property stolen did not belong to him. A citizen has no duty to act when a misdemeanor crime is in progress so Target did not break the law. That said I am glad Target decided to prosecute.
-------------------------------------------------------
> GRRRRRR is a dumbshit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > idiots Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Some of you guys are absolute idiots.
> Target
> > > has
> > > > really strict rules that prohibit many of
> > there
> > > AP
> > > > personnel from acting. This is meant to
> > > > discourage over zealous wanna be cops from
> > > getting
> > > > the company sued. If he did in fact
> violate
> > > one
> > > > of the AP procedures then the end result is
> > > > termination. All AP personnel know the
> > rules.
> > > >
> > > > As for the police covering up, once again
> you
> > > are
> > > > idiots if you believe that. They did not
> > > witness
> > > > the misdemeanor offense and therefore could
> > not
> > > > arrest him without Targets cooperation.
> They
> > > > could not file warrants until Target agreed
> > to
> > > > press charges. When Target agreed to press
> > > > charges, LPD did there job.
> > >
> > > They have it on video, how is that not
> evidence
> > > fucknuts?
> >
> >
> > Obviously you have no legal training if you
> think
> > a video proves anything in court dumbshit. Like
> I
> > said Target is the victim and there is not
> > prosecution unless the victim wants to proceed.
>
> > This is especially true with shoplifting. Stop
> > watching Judge Judy for your legal training.
>
> And you need to join us in the 21st Century...
>
> § 19.2-81. Arrest without warrant authorized in
> certain cases.
>
> A. The following officers shall have the powers of
> arrest as provided in this section:
>
> 1. Members of the State Police force of the
> Commonwealth;
>
> 2. Sheriffs of the various counties and cities,
> and their deputies;
>
> 3. Members of any county police force or any duly
> constituted police force of any city or town of
> the Commonwealth;
>
> 4. The Commissioner, members and employees of the
> Marine Resources Commission granted the power of
> arrest pursuant to § 28.2-900;
>
> 5. Regular conservation police officers appointed
> pursuant to § 29.1-200;
>
> 6. United States Coast Guard and United States
> Coast Guard Reserve commissioned, warrant, and
> petty officers authorized under § 29.1-205 to
> make arrests;
>
> 7. Conservation officers appointed pursuant to §
> 10.1-115;
>
> 8. Full-time sworn members of the enforcement
> division of the Department of Motor Vehicles
> appointed pursuant to § 46.2-217;
>
> 9. Special agents of the Department of Alcoholic
> Beverage Control; and
>
> 10. Campus police officers appointed under Chapter
> 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23.
>
> B. Such officers may arrest without a warrant any
> person who commits any crime in the presence of
> the officer and any person whom he has reasonable
> grounds or probable cause to suspect of having
> committed a felony not in his presence.
>
> Such officers may arrest without a warrant any
> person whom the officer has probable cause to
> suspect of operating any watercraft or motorboat
> while (i) intoxicated in violation of subsection B
> of § 29.1-738 or a substantially similar
> ordinance of any county, city, or town in the
> Commonwealth or (ii) in violation of an order
> issued pursuant to § 29.1-738.4 and may
> thereafter transfer custody of the person arrested
> to another officer, who may obtain a warrant based
> upon statements made to him by the arresting
> officer.
>
> C. Any such officer may, at the scene of any
> accident involving a motor vehicle, watercraft as
> defined in § 29.1-733.2 or motorboat, or at any
> hospital or medical facility to which any person
> involved in such accident has been transported, or
> in the apprehension of any person charged with the
> theft of any motor vehicle, on any of the highways
> or waters of the Commonwealth, upon reasonable
> grounds to believe, based upon personal
> investigation, including information obtained from
> eyewitnesses, that a crime has been committed by
> any person then and there present, apprehend such
> person without a warrant of arrest. For purposes
> of this section, "the scene of any accident" shall
> include a reasonable location where a vehicle or
> person involved in an accident has been moved at
> the direction of a law-enforcement officer to
> facilitate the clearing of the highway or to
> ensure the safety of the motoring public.
>
> D. Such officers may, within three hours of the
> alleged offense, arrest without a warrant at any
> location any person whom the officer has probable
> cause to suspect of driving or operating a motor
> vehicle, watercraft or motorboat while intoxicated
> in violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1,
> 46.2-341.24, or subsection B of § 29.1-738; or a
> substantially similar ordinance of any county,
> city, or town in the Commonwealth, whether or not
> the offense was committed in such officer's
> presence. Such officers may, within three hours of
> the alleged offense, arrest without a warrant at
> any location any person whom the officer has
> probable cause to suspect of operating a
> watercraft or motorboat in violation of an order
> issued pursuant to § 29.1-738.4, whether or not
> the offense was committed in such officer's
> presence.
>
> E. Such officers may arrest, without a warrant or
> a capias, persons duly charged with a crime in
> another jurisdiction upon receipt of a photocopy
> of a warrant or a capias, telegram, computer
> printout, facsimile printout, a radio, telephone
> or teletype message, in which photocopy of a
> warrant, telegram, computer printout, facsimile
> printout, radio, telephone or teletype message
> shall be given the name or a reasonably accurate
> description of such person wanted and the crime
> alleged.
>
> F. Such officers may arrest, without a warrant or
> a capias, for an alleged misdemeanor not committed
> in his presence when the officer receives a radio
> message from his department or other
> law-enforcement agency within the Commonwealth
> that a warrant or capias for such offense is on
> file.
>
> G. Such officers may also arrest without a warrant
> for an alleged misdemeanor not committed in their
> presence involving (i) shoplifting in violation of
> § 18.2-96 or 18.2-103 or a similar local
> ordinance, (ii) carrying a weapon on school
> property in violation of § 18.2-308.1, (iii)
> assault and battery, (iv) brandishing a firearm in
> violation of § 18.2-282, or (v) destruction of
> property in violation of § 18.2-137, when such
> property is located on premises used for business
> or commercial purposes, or a similar local
> ordinance, when any such arrest is based on
> probable cause upon reasonable complaint of the
> person who observed the alleged offense. The
> arresting officer may issue a summons to any
> person arrested under this section for a
> misdemeanor violation involving shoplifting.
>
> (Code 1950, § 19.1-100; 1960, c. 366; 1974, c.
> 241; 1975, c. 495; 1976, cc. 515, 570; 1977, c.
> 97; 1979, c. 268; 1982, c. 272; 1983, c. 206;
> 1984, c. 534; 1985, c. 507; 1988, cc. 353, 744,
> 752, 853; 1989, c. 726; 1990, cc. 635, 744, 784;
> 1995, c. 465; 1996, cc. 866, 929, 1015; 1998, c.
> 684; 2004, c. 949; 2005, cc. 88, 435; 2008, cc.
> 460, 737; 2010, c. 840; 2011, cc. 510, 643; 2012,
> c. 776; 2013, c. 787; 2014, c. 543.)
Simply pasting the VCC warrantless arrest statute does not validate your point. You must have PC to make an arrest. If you have no complaining witness then you cannot obtain PC. According to the report the reporting party did not directly witness the shoplifting offense. Which is probably why Target fired him for not following company procedure. Contrary to popular opinion many stores do not prosecute shoplifters unless the agent directly witnesses the alleged offense. Either way Target did not want to prosecute and at the time and therefore you cannot make a warrantless arrest. When Target decided to prosecute the arrest was made.
The fired employee does not become the victim because the property stolen did not belong to him. A citizen has no duty to act when a misdemeanor crime is in progress so Target did not break the law. That said I am glad Target decided to prosecute.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Triumph the Insult Dog
()
Date: July 19, 2014 06:37PM
My fellow bitches
Is it not apparent that this bitch the Sheriff of Fairfax, who I will admit has a good smelling butt, is covering for this hound named Palmer? If I stole dog food from Target-would I not be fired like the bitch I am? Why then does this hound Palmer be allowed to retire? Something smells -how you say?- like POOP! To all of my friends out there who know how I like to smell a good butt, I tell you-something do not seem right!! To all of the Sheriffs Office leadership I POOP ON YOU!!
Is it not apparent that this bitch the Sheriff of Fairfax, who I will admit has a good smelling butt, is covering for this hound named Palmer? If I stole dog food from Target-would I not be fired like the bitch I am? Why then does this hound Palmer be allowed to retire? Something smells -how you say?- like POOP! To all of my friends out there who know how I like to smell a good butt, I tell you-something do not seem right!! To all of the Sheriffs Office leadership I POOP ON YOU!!
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Triumph the Insult Dog
()
Date: July 19, 2014 06:44PM
I am watching you bitches just so you know...more coming...oh so much more!!!
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Fairness
()
Date: July 20, 2014 08:26AM
He retired knowing that he was going to be convicted. He should be treated like anybody else seems like a big cover up from both Leesburg Police Department, Fairfax County Sheriff's Department there needs to be an out-of-state investigation who's watching big brother
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
jocksniffer
()
Date: July 20, 2014 10:59AM
out of state investigation of a shoplifting case that resulted in an arrest of a former sheriffs deputy LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Target On Defensive For Firing Security Officer Who Reported Shoplifting
Posted by:
Target On Defensive
()
Date: July 21, 2014 09:59AM
Target On Defensive For Firing Security Officer Who Reported Shoplifting
Leesburg police released a statement Monday addressing the case of a shoplifter who may have been a Fairfax Sheriff's Office deputy and a Target security officer who was allegedly fired for reporting the incident.
http://leesburg.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/leesburg-target-security-officer-fired-after-reporting-shoplifting
LEESBURG, Va. —Target officials are under fire again — this time for firing a security guard after he reported a man believed to be a sheriff's deputy for shoplifting.
Dallas Northington, 29, worked as a security officer for a Target store in Leesburg for nearly eight years before he was abruptly fired after reporting shoplifting by a man who may have been a Fairfax County sheriff’s deputy.
Northington filed a routine report with Leesburg police May 27 after the man was allegedly captured twice on video while shoplifting, The Washington Post reports. Days after the report was filed, the suspect retired from the Fairfax County sheriff’s office and Northington was fired.
Target officials allegedly told Northington he violated procedure by failing to fill out proper paperwork before contacting the police, though Northington said he had followed the same procedure for years.
Leesburg police issued a statement Monday saying the decision to fire Northington was “strictly a corporate decision made by Target with no discussion or knowledge by our agency.”
Target faced widespread criticism on social media following the report. Among the many posts on Twitter:
•Top Five Records @ebmorton: @Target very sad you have to fire Dallas Northington because a police officer arrested. Way to fire man with a family for doing his job.
•Sting @maijinsting: I hope this Dallas Northington story gets major coverage, because @Target deserves all the backlash and criticism that would come their way.
•Jon C. Ham @rivlax: @Target I will never shop at Target again after reading of the monumental injustice to Dallas Northington in your Leesville, VA, store. -
Though Northington said store supervisors recognized the suspect through two color videos "in which his face was clearly visible," the suspect has not been charged with a crime and Leesburg investigators said they were still trying to confirm the suspect’s identity, according to the Post.
Monday morning, Leesburg police said the individual involved in the theft was identified as a Fairfax Sheriff’s Office deputy as early as Friday, May 30.
Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said in an email the company conducted an extensive investigation and did not believe there is any merit to Northington’s claims. However, Target indicated to police that the company intends to move forward with criminal charges associated with the theft.
Attachments:
Leesburg police released a statement Monday addressing the case of a shoplifter who may have been a Fairfax Sheriff's Office deputy and a Target security officer who was allegedly fired for reporting the incident.
http://leesburg.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/leesburg-target-security-officer-fired-after-reporting-shoplifting
LEESBURG, Va. —Target officials are under fire again — this time for firing a security guard after he reported a man believed to be a sheriff's deputy for shoplifting.
Dallas Northington, 29, worked as a security officer for a Target store in Leesburg for nearly eight years before he was abruptly fired after reporting shoplifting by a man who may have been a Fairfax County sheriff’s deputy.
Northington filed a routine report with Leesburg police May 27 after the man was allegedly captured twice on video while shoplifting, The Washington Post reports. Days after the report was filed, the suspect retired from the Fairfax County sheriff’s office and Northington was fired.
Target officials allegedly told Northington he violated procedure by failing to fill out proper paperwork before contacting the police, though Northington said he had followed the same procedure for years.
Leesburg police issued a statement Monday saying the decision to fire Northington was “strictly a corporate decision made by Target with no discussion or knowledge by our agency.”
Target faced widespread criticism on social media following the report. Among the many posts on Twitter:
•Top Five Records @ebmorton: @Target very sad you have to fire Dallas Northington because a police officer arrested. Way to fire man with a family for doing his job.
•Sting @maijinsting: I hope this Dallas Northington story gets major coverage, because @Target deserves all the backlash and criticism that would come their way.
•Jon C. Ham @rivlax: @Target I will never shop at Target again after reading of the monumental injustice to Dallas Northington in your Leesville, VA, store. -
Though Northington said store supervisors recognized the suspect through two color videos "in which his face was clearly visible," the suspect has not been charged with a crime and Leesburg investigators said they were still trying to confirm the suspect’s identity, according to the Post.
Monday morning, Leesburg police said the individual involved in the theft was identified as a Fairfax Sheriff’s Office deputy as early as Friday, May 30.
Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said in an email the company conducted an extensive investigation and did not believe there is any merit to Northington’s claims. However, Target indicated to police that the company intends to move forward with criminal charges associated with the theft.
Attachments:
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
MAC_UM
()
Date: July 21, 2014 10:01AM
I'm beginning to get a clearer picture as to why it was so easy to hack into Target's base computer complex a few months ago. The arrogance and lack of public perception by management is overwhelming.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Jeff Gillette
()
Date: July 21, 2014 03:08PM
What was he stealing? Palmer had ROID rages all the time, what a supreme loser.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Robert Palmer
()
Date: July 21, 2014 03:23PM
Thanks Sheriff Stacey Kincaid for letting me retire. I thought about staying because in the past you were part of the command staff that gave other thieves, drunks and liars a chance to stay on the job.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Get it right!
()
Date: July 21, 2014 03:30PM
Robert Palmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Sheriff Stacey Kincaid for letting me
> retire. I thought about staying because in the
> past you were part of the command staff that gave
> other thieves, drunks and liars a chance to stay
> on the job.
Sheriff Stacey Kincaid was the sheriff in Fairfax County, this is Loudoun County so it was Simpson who left.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Sheriff Stacey Kincaid for letting me
> retire. I thought about staying because in the
> past you were part of the command staff that gave
> other thieves, drunks and liars a chance to stay
> on the job.
Sheriff Stacey Kincaid was the sheriff in Fairfax County, this is Loudoun County so it was Simpson who left.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
You get it right
()
Date: July 21, 2014 03:55PM
Dear get it right,
Palmer is (now was) a FAIRFAX County deputy sheriff. Stacey Kincaid is the sheriff not was, like you said in your post of Fairfax County. The store was in Leesburg Virginia. Which is in Loudoun County. Simpson was the sheriff in Loudoun. So I did have it RIGHT, now you get it right. Just for your information so next time you don't look so stupid.
Palmer is (now was) a FAIRFAX County deputy sheriff. Stacey Kincaid is the sheriff not was, like you said in your post of Fairfax County. The store was in Leesburg Virginia. Which is in Loudoun County. Simpson was the sheriff in Loudoun. So I did have it RIGHT, now you get it right. Just for your information so next time you don't look so stupid.
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Get it right!
()
Date: July 22, 2014 06:33AM
I think we all need to Boycott Target for a while. Not sure what happened to them but they've been on the suck side of things since last November.
Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
Posted by:
More Info
()
Date: July 22, 2014 07:07AM
Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/leesburg-chief-defends-police-role-in-target-shoplifting-case-involving-fairfax-deputy/2014/07/19/092a08c2-0ec7-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html
Leesburg police are conducting an internal inquiry to determine why a shoplifting investigation involving a Fairfax County sheriff’s deputy took six weeks, but Chief Joseph Price said Friday there was no preliminary indication that his investigator was trying to protect the deputy.
Price provided a detailed timeline of his department’s involvement in the shoplifting case that may shed further light on why Target fired its own security officer, Dallas Northington, a week after he reported two apparent thefts to Leesburg police.
Price said Northington turned over a “bootleg video” of the shoplifting rather than a complete, multi-camera version, did not provide a written report and requested anonymity when contacting police, which meant he could not be the complaining witness for Target as he had been in numerous other cases.
Northington said Saturday the video was in the same form that he had provided to Leesburg police in many other cases and that he had never previously been asked by police to provide a written report. He said he did not seek anonymity and repeatedly reached out to his Target supervisor after contacting police to inform him of his actions after the supervisor had left for the day.
Price and Northington agreed that Target’s lack of cooperation with the investigation impeded the police in resolving the criminal case. Target declined to comment Friday.
Northington vigorously praised Leesburg police, calling them “a very good agency with very good officers. The Leesburg police didn’t fire me. It was Target; it had nothing to do with Leesburg.” Northington also defended the sergeant who investigated the case, saying he “put his best foot forward to really get this resolved. But for some reason Target wouldn’t get in touch with the officer.”
Target did not initially assist the investigation, Price said. Its security supervisor reportedly declined to return the police investigator’s calls and did not volunteer its full video or loss report, although Price said both were compiled soon after Northington made his report May 27. Price said Target estimated that $94 in merchandise was taken in an incident that day and that a $6 tube of toothpaste was taken in an incident May 16 that was not initially reported to police.
Robert Palmer, 50, a 20-year veteran of the Fairfax sheriff’s office, was confronted about the case by his internal affairs unit June 3 and immediately retired. That same day, Target fired Northington, 29, who had worked for the company for nearly eight years, most recently as an assets protection specialist at the store on Edwards Ferry Road.
After an article about the case appeared July 13 in The Washington Post, Price said he called Target the next day and demanded to know if they would cooperate in prosecuting the case. Target responded that they would, and Palmer was charged with two counts of petty larceny.
Northington’s version of events was largely corroborated by Price, but with important clarifying details. Northington said he did not witness either the alleged toothpaste theft or the alleged swiping of $94 worth of items by a man who paid for some items at a pharmacy counter, then added unpaid items to the bags.
Each time, Northington said, his supervisor informed him of the incidents and showed him video of the same suspect. Northington said his supervisor told him he believed the suspect was in law enforcement, possibly in Fairfax County, and his name might be “Bob.”
The supervisor did not confront the suspect during either incident, which Leesburg Lt. Carl Maupin said was often crucial to make a shoplifting case, both for viewing the stolen merchandise and confirming that the person seen from the security booth is the suspect. Maupin said the supervisor might have been hesitant to confront a police officer who could be armed.
Price said Northington then sent text messages to two Leesburg officers saying, “I think there’s a guy from Fairfax law enforcement who’s ripping us off and I need to know what to do.” Price said Northington added, “And don’t tell my supervisor.”
Northington said he also reached out to a Fairfax police officer for private guidance because he was concerned about the safety aspect of confronting an officer. He said the officer told him to report the case immediately, so he did. Northington said he was not trying to avoid Target’s chain of command, but was merely consulting friends in law enforcement for advice before taking any action.
On May 27, Northington called Leesburg police, then went to the Leesburg police station at 11 p.m. to make a report. (He previously told The Post that the supervisor had called the police.) He said a sergeant then accompanied him back to Target, watched the video and was given a copy.
Price said the sergeant did not normally handle shoplifting cases, but took this one because it may have involved a law enforcement officer. He also said the sergeant may not have realized he was given an incomplete video. The sergeant was aware, Price said, that Northington did not want his supervisors to know about his report, so he felt that Northington was not authorizing a formal complaint from Target, as he had done in the past.
Northington said he didn’t make a complete video because it was 1 a.m. and Target frowned on overtime work. He said he would have made a full video when he returned to work, but instead Target suspended him, then fired him. Northington said he regularly provided partial videos to police, with eyewitness testimony from supervisors filling in any gaps, and that he intended to be the complaining witness, as he had been in the past.
Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said Friday she could not comment on the chain’s role in the investigation. She said earlier that Northington’s claims of being fired unfairly were “without merit.”
After Northington was fired, the police needed to know if Target would still pursue the case. “My guy slips here,” Price said of his investigator’s actions in early June. “He tells me he’s contacted Target to see if they will press charges.” Northington didn’t know the monetary value of what was stolen, and retailers, including Target, often aren’t interested in pursuing small cases. Also, Northington hadn’t witnessed the alleged theft; the supervisor had. But Target’s supervisor didn’t return the Leesburg sergeant’s calls, Price said.
Northington said Target regularly pursued cases in which there were no live witnesses, only video footage gathered after the fact. He described instances in which merchandise was missing and he later reviewed video and inventory records and compiled a case.
“These are huge stores with limited staff,” Northington’s attorney Declan Leonard said. “It’s not feasible for them to see everything going on. That’s why they rely on the video.”
From early June to mid-July, no further action was taken by Target or the police sergeant. “He had some leave in there, some training; that’s not an excuse,” Price said of the sergeant. “Expectations within the agency are we wouldn’t go that long without some type of follow-up action.”
Northington said the sergeant “really made an honest attempt to get in contact with Target, and for some reason Target wouldn’t get in touch with him.”
Price said he did not know whether anyone had told Palmer about the investigation before the Fairfax sheriff’s investigators confronted him June 3. “There no indication that anybody from our department contacted Palmer,” he said. He said his department was a “professional, quality organization that is well-respected. If we have personnel that didn’t perform the way they should, we will take appropriate actions. Any indication of integrity violations will not be tolerated.”
Dallas Northington, 29, was a security officer at a Target store in Leesburg, Va., when he reported a shoplifter. He was fired days later. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)
Attachments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/leesburg-chief-defends-police-role-in-target-shoplifting-case-involving-fairfax-deputy/2014/07/19/092a08c2-0ec7-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html
Leesburg police are conducting an internal inquiry to determine why a shoplifting investigation involving a Fairfax County sheriff’s deputy took six weeks, but Chief Joseph Price said Friday there was no preliminary indication that his investigator was trying to protect the deputy.
Price provided a detailed timeline of his department’s involvement in the shoplifting case that may shed further light on why Target fired its own security officer, Dallas Northington, a week after he reported two apparent thefts to Leesburg police.
Price said Northington turned over a “bootleg video” of the shoplifting rather than a complete, multi-camera version, did not provide a written report and requested anonymity when contacting police, which meant he could not be the complaining witness for Target as he had been in numerous other cases.
Northington said Saturday the video was in the same form that he had provided to Leesburg police in many other cases and that he had never previously been asked by police to provide a written report. He said he did not seek anonymity and repeatedly reached out to his Target supervisor after contacting police to inform him of his actions after the supervisor had left for the day.
Price and Northington agreed that Target’s lack of cooperation with the investigation impeded the police in resolving the criminal case. Target declined to comment Friday.
Northington vigorously praised Leesburg police, calling them “a very good agency with very good officers. The Leesburg police didn’t fire me. It was Target; it had nothing to do with Leesburg.” Northington also defended the sergeant who investigated the case, saying he “put his best foot forward to really get this resolved. But for some reason Target wouldn’t get in touch with the officer.”
Target did not initially assist the investigation, Price said. Its security supervisor reportedly declined to return the police investigator’s calls and did not volunteer its full video or loss report, although Price said both were compiled soon after Northington made his report May 27. Price said Target estimated that $94 in merchandise was taken in an incident that day and that a $6 tube of toothpaste was taken in an incident May 16 that was not initially reported to police.
Robert Palmer, 50, a 20-year veteran of the Fairfax sheriff’s office, was confronted about the case by his internal affairs unit June 3 and immediately retired. That same day, Target fired Northington, 29, who had worked for the company for nearly eight years, most recently as an assets protection specialist at the store on Edwards Ferry Road.
After an article about the case appeared July 13 in The Washington Post, Price said he called Target the next day and demanded to know if they would cooperate in prosecuting the case. Target responded that they would, and Palmer was charged with two counts of petty larceny.
Northington’s version of events was largely corroborated by Price, but with important clarifying details. Northington said he did not witness either the alleged toothpaste theft or the alleged swiping of $94 worth of items by a man who paid for some items at a pharmacy counter, then added unpaid items to the bags.
Each time, Northington said, his supervisor informed him of the incidents and showed him video of the same suspect. Northington said his supervisor told him he believed the suspect was in law enforcement, possibly in Fairfax County, and his name might be “Bob.”
The supervisor did not confront the suspect during either incident, which Leesburg Lt. Carl Maupin said was often crucial to make a shoplifting case, both for viewing the stolen merchandise and confirming that the person seen from the security booth is the suspect. Maupin said the supervisor might have been hesitant to confront a police officer who could be armed.
Price said Northington then sent text messages to two Leesburg officers saying, “I think there’s a guy from Fairfax law enforcement who’s ripping us off and I need to know what to do.” Price said Northington added, “And don’t tell my supervisor.”
Northington said he also reached out to a Fairfax police officer for private guidance because he was concerned about the safety aspect of confronting an officer. He said the officer told him to report the case immediately, so he did. Northington said he was not trying to avoid Target’s chain of command, but was merely consulting friends in law enforcement for advice before taking any action.
On May 27, Northington called Leesburg police, then went to the Leesburg police station at 11 p.m. to make a report. (He previously told The Post that the supervisor had called the police.) He said a sergeant then accompanied him back to Target, watched the video and was given a copy.
Price said the sergeant did not normally handle shoplifting cases, but took this one because it may have involved a law enforcement officer. He also said the sergeant may not have realized he was given an incomplete video. The sergeant was aware, Price said, that Northington did not want his supervisors to know about his report, so he felt that Northington was not authorizing a formal complaint from Target, as he had done in the past.
Northington said he didn’t make a complete video because it was 1 a.m. and Target frowned on overtime work. He said he would have made a full video when he returned to work, but instead Target suspended him, then fired him. Northington said he regularly provided partial videos to police, with eyewitness testimony from supervisors filling in any gaps, and that he intended to be the complaining witness, as he had been in the past.
Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said Friday she could not comment on the chain’s role in the investigation. She said earlier that Northington’s claims of being fired unfairly were “without merit.”
After Northington was fired, the police needed to know if Target would still pursue the case. “My guy slips here,” Price said of his investigator’s actions in early June. “He tells me he’s contacted Target to see if they will press charges.” Northington didn’t know the monetary value of what was stolen, and retailers, including Target, often aren’t interested in pursuing small cases. Also, Northington hadn’t witnessed the alleged theft; the supervisor had. But Target’s supervisor didn’t return the Leesburg sergeant’s calls, Price said.
Northington said Target regularly pursued cases in which there were no live witnesses, only video footage gathered after the fact. He described instances in which merchandise was missing and he later reviewed video and inventory records and compiled a case.
“These are huge stores with limited staff,” Northington’s attorney Declan Leonard said. “It’s not feasible for them to see everything going on. That’s why they rely on the video.”
From early June to mid-July, no further action was taken by Target or the police sergeant. “He had some leave in there, some training; that’s not an excuse,” Price said of the sergeant. “Expectations within the agency are we wouldn’t go that long without some type of follow-up action.”
Northington said the sergeant “really made an honest attempt to get in contact with Target, and for some reason Target wouldn’t get in touch with him.”
Price said he did not know whether anyone had told Palmer about the investigation before the Fairfax sheriff’s investigators confronted him June 3. “There no indication that anybody from our department contacted Palmer,” he said. He said his department was a “professional, quality organization that is well-respected. If we have personnel that didn’t perform the way they should, we will take appropriate actions. Any indication of integrity violations will not be tolerated.”
Dallas Northington, 29, was a security officer at a Target store in Leesburg, Va., when he reported a shoplifter. He was fired days later. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)
Attachments:
Re: Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
Posted by:
Sleeper
()
Date: July 23, 2014 08:23PM
Reading all of these posts make me realize how much we need Bill Cooper for Sheriff in 2015!! How refreshing it will be to unlock the damage the Dems like Kincaid, Barry, McAuliffe, and Obama have inflicted on Fairfax County!!Stacey Kincaid may prove to be the worst Sheriff in county history, once the facts get out!! Think about it- cover up for an employee who stole from Target, that gets a guy FIRED!! Looking the other way while your IT section runs up a HUGE bill for a system that may or not be ready for prime time!! How about overtime in a supply section that has 2 CT's,a 2LT, a civilian, and two MDS 's(one special assignment)!! We need Bill Cooper!!
Re: Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
Posted by:
Tyler Corey
()
Date: July 23, 2014 08:30PM
Re: Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
Posted by: Sleeper ()
Date: July 23, 2014 08:23PM
Reading all of these posts make me realize how much we need Bill Cooper for Sheriff in 2015!! How refreshing it will be to unlock the damage the Dems like Kincaid, Barry, McAuliffe, and Obama have inflicted on Fairfax County!!Stacey Kincaid may prove to be the worst Sheriff in county history, once the facts get out!! Think about it- cover up for an employee who stole from Target, that gets a guy FIRED!! Looking the other way while your IT section runs up a HUGE bill for a system that may or not be ready for prime time!! How about overtime in a supply section that has 2 CT's,a 2LT, a civilian, and two MDS 's(one special assignment)!! We need Bill Cooper!!
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Back in the day I supported Bill Cooper-in 2011 I banged signs all night with Nathan and Jim Tully- despite Stacey supporting Stan Barry- but I can jump fences any time because I am a gutless coward!!Please, let me be the one to bail Nic out the next time he gets his DWI!! You know he will!!
Posted by: Sleeper ()
Date: July 23, 2014 08:23PM
Reading all of these posts make me realize how much we need Bill Cooper for Sheriff in 2015!! How refreshing it will be to unlock the damage the Dems like Kincaid, Barry, McAuliffe, and Obama have inflicted on Fairfax County!!Stacey Kincaid may prove to be the worst Sheriff in county history, once the facts get out!! Think about it- cover up for an employee who stole from Target, that gets a guy FIRED!! Looking the other way while your IT section runs up a HUGE bill for a system that may or not be ready for prime time!! How about overtime in a supply section that has 2 CT's,a 2LT, a civilian, and two MDS 's(one special assignment)!! We need Bill Cooper!!
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Back in the day I supported Bill Cooper-in 2011 I banged signs all night with Nathan and Jim Tully- despite Stacey supporting Stan Barry- but I can jump fences any time because I am a gutless coward!!Please, let me be the one to bail Nic out the next time he gets his DWI!! You know he will!!
Re: Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
Posted by:
Steve Williams
()
Date: July 25, 2014 09:51PM
OMG, they are stealing kids
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
Posted by:
Internal Affairs
()
Date: July 26, 2014 08:37PM
Word is there is more coming on the Bob Palmer Sheriff's Office scandal....developing
Re: Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
Posted by:
Roscoe Mercer
()
Date: July 26, 2014 09:39PM
Please go on......
Re: Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
Posted by:
Injustice for All
()
Date: July 27, 2014 09:11PM
How many people steal and don't get a bond or have to spend months in jail.!! This man got released and from the other story I look at, this wasn't the first time he stole from this store.. And the man that lost his job, did talk to someone and wanted to comfort the officer.. But because people knew what he did for a living they did want to touch him.. Sad.!! This young man was doing his job.. And what's the big deal of not witnessing the theft, its on video and to me that is worse... I hope this young man returns to work and sounds like his lawyer has his back.!!
Re: Leesburg chief defends police role in Target shoplifting case involving Fairfax deputy
Posted by:
Jim Vickery
()
Date: July 27, 2014 10:27PM
STOP THE CORRUPTION
Re: Va. sheriff's employee to be charged in shoplifting
Posted by:
Jim Vickery
()
Date: July 27, 2014 10:40PM
Endless payoffs
Attachments:
Attachments: