Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HB, you are missing the point. MM has still not > answered my question of whether or not he and > others were present for long enough to see > everything that happened and the reasons for it > happening? We do not know all the facts (for the > umtenth time!), so even if violence was not used > the person may well have threatened violence > verbally or signalled that they had some sort of > weapon on them in which case more than "reasonable > restraint" should be enforced to protect staff and > customers. > > Louisa. Louisa I'm missing no point, MM witnessed an incident that disturbed him, in the way that employees were apparently dealing with a person who had been allegedely stealing from the shop. No weapons on display, no threats to other shoppers that we're aware of. Just what MM reported and the indignation at what he thought was excessive behaviour and undue violence toward a supposed miscreant who was offering no fight back. Your extrapolations make no sense in the context of the original post. The connection between shoplifting and house burglary is that they are both taking something that does not belong to you. To try and suggest there is a moral equivalence between the two, which gives the right to use the same level of force in both sets of circumstances, makes no sense to me at all.