Here's an interesting article regarding the whole "citizen's arrest" legality. Particularly the part about the ninth amendment: [www.constitution.org]

On a humorous note, my partner made a citizen's arrest when we both worked at a bookstore. There was a music section, and she was in charge of it. The crook had taken so many CDs and stuffed them in his pants that he could barely walk. He tried to get on a bus, but she yelled out to the driver that the guy was a thief, so he just closed the doors and drove off.

She chased the guy behind the store, in front of a daycare center, all the while yelling that she was making a citizen's arrest. He finally gave up, and she realized that though he couldn't get away, she'd have a hard time restraining him. So she told him that if he gave the CDs back, she'd let him go. He had to pull off his pants to do so, to the great amusement of the parents who were waiting for their kids to get out of daycare.

Meanwhile, I'm in the breakroom, eating my lunch. She kicks the door open, arms full of CDs (several hundred dollars worth), and yells, "I caught that son of a bitch! I caught him and made him drop his drawers!" LOL.

So, even though I wasn't happy she risked herself, I couldn't help but laugh at the story. It would be even more funny if you saw her, because she does *not* look like the type taht would chase down a crook.

@Elviswasntmyhero: So, is he a hick-in-training because he is from TN, or because he is wearing a ballcap, you ignorant dolt?

@tcm22:

He didn't detain a SUSPECTED thief, he detained a KNOWN thief.

Not showing your receipt isn't even probable-cause for suspecting a theft. Prying open a drink machine with a crowbar is pretty obvious.

Someone up above said to yell stop thief so that a customer could tackle him. I don't care about Home Depot's problems. Why would I help out, so I could get stabbed instead?

Some guy breaking a Coke machine isn't worth getting riled up unless it's your personal coke machine. This guy is some big manly man who wanted to be a hero by protecting the honor of a Coke machine.

I'm not saying you should never help out, but there's no point doing anything unless a human being is in danger. Won't anyone think of the Coke machine?

People get fired for stopping shop lifters, either physically or accusing them of stealing, to prevent lawsuits.

Its horrible to say but if "crowbar bandit" sued HD because an employee "assualted" him, he would probably win the case.

When I worked at Circuit City, it was same policy. I had to stand and watch as two guys came in with a drill and steal every iPod on the floor. We got their license plate and their faces on camera, but I was still pissed cause Honestly a "Hey what the fuck do you think you are doing" prolly would have stopped the huge loss to the store.

i do find it hard to believe that after 7 years, he'd never heard of the policy. it's one of the first things i'm always taught at any business. also, most people i know who work retail are always shocked at how we can never physically detain shoplifters, and if they refuse to stay based on a "could you please empty your pockets" request, must let them go.

Correction to your first question (read it wrong):

YES; and it's quite an incredible majority to be precise

if you're a fanbois of a certain comany's [numerous] storefront(s), the answer is NO

same with MANY places. I'm sure Dustin's intentions were genuine and honest, but in the world we live in, the thief could have easily turned it around 180 degrees and had a true payday with the theft.

I worked LP (loss prevention) at UConn's computer/bookstore while I went there, and the main rule to follow was that we should NEVER physically obtain anyone...generally the people we caught did everything we asked them to. Chances are if they ran we could ID them from PTZ (pan/tilt/zoom) high-powered cameras-really sick and fun technology

Police are trained to handle criminals, the general public is not. I for one feel safer that some employee isn't going to escalate a situation that results mine or anyone else's injury.You can still get a description and observe the criminal as you wait for police to arrive. It is important that he is caught, not that you stop him. Don't play hero with other people's lives.

The wussification of America continues...
Now with 100% more corporate sponsorship!
Goooooo criminals!

@Smashville: Maybe the drink machine was still open. Someone who says they're Dustin's dad, vchester, says that the cashier yelled for Dustin when she saw the guy at the drink machine. It's unclear whether he already had the crowbar out or pulled it out after Dustin showed up.

From the comments on the newspaper's web site:

One other thing is that no one has mentioned that another associate was on the to be fired list for being involved...HE CALLED THE POLICE. They were going to fire him for that. I want to know why there is only one Loss Prevention Associate thats right ONE for all 168 hours per week.

But firing someone for calling the police? Are you serious? Do they not let their employees do anything to stop theft?

Keep in mind first and foremost that any successful retail business builds an expected shrink cost into their pricing. Our store expected to lose about 3-4% of sales to shrink each year and our prices were adjusted to pass that cost along to the consumer.

And risking getting injured or killed because some lowlife is stealing a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand or however much merchandise is just plain stupid. Product is replaceable.

It makes sense to encourage employees not to engage a thief--only a trained professional, like a contracted security company or law enforcement, should. What if the employee got hurt? Then HD could be both liable for the injury and responsible for workman's comp.

Also, if you remember from the TigerDirect article, stores cannot restrain people. While it is fun bashing Home Depot, I have to admit, they are right on this one.

Property isn't worth getting hurt over -- merchandise can be replaced and people can't," he said.

Apparently, people can be replaced. This guy was.

So its a big free-for-all at Home Depot then?

HOT DIGGITY!!!

@nardo218: The law makes no distinction between detained and restrained in Citizen's Arrest situation. The common marker of measure is that you can only stop them for felonies, not misdemeanors or that third type of crime (name escapes me, like moving violations)

I'm not so much disputing the article's veracity as much as its relevance to this discussion. And given the murkiness of probable cause, the potential liabilities, and the fact that the guy is an agent of a store that specifically doesn't want to chase shoplifters, the right to make a citizen's arrest, if such a thing exists, means very little in this case.

And while it's easy to say "he should have read the employee manual", it seems HD didn't do a good job of stressing the importance of the policy, considering it was grounds for immediate termination.

So here's a blurb about Citizen's Arrest --
"Citizens and police may detain any person who they have probable cause to believe committed in their presence a felony, breach of the peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property. The key distinction between an arrest and a detainment is that the detainee may not be transported without their consent."

If Dustin were to "detain" said crowbar-wielding dingbat he's perfectly within the law to do so... why must Ho Depot take it upon themselves to make employee policies that are the exact opposite of the law?
(I know, I know, to not get people hurt and all that good stuff. Remember that I'm from the Lone Star State and we have nice ways of dealing with this sort of thing. If you disagree, that's cool and all... I'm just saying...)

You kick ass.

oh yeah, eff Home Depot.

I "had to" let over 100 thiefs walk away. Yeah over 100!! All of them where kids and young adults. They all knew we could do nothing. It spread like wild fire! Pretty darn stupid!!

Essentially a thief can walk in pick up a $200 power tool set and skip out the door merrily. If they refuse to show a receipt we have to let them walk. I recently transfered over to Tool World. Everyday I find torn packaging and missing items. I find it amazing that we can even make any profit with how things are.

One time at target i watched a guy put a very expensive cd player in a big mall bag. i told TPS (security) about it, and poof they let him walk out the door with it.

However, I don't think most places would actually FIRE someone, especially an employee in good standing. I "chased" a shoplifter outside once, but it was a very different situation. She was running as fast as she could back to her car, and I only followed her onto the sidewalk to get her license plate number. My job doesn't pay me enough to even consider for a second chasing an armed shoplifter. If someone comes in acting suspiciously, I follow them and provide "excellent customer service" until they leaved. If an armed robber were to come into my store, my only question would be "would you like those stolen goods in a paper bag or a plastic one?"

What did she get out of the entire experience? Nothing but chronic back problems, surgeries, and a load of medical bills that weren't even partially paid off by a settlement until more than eight years after the incident.

In short, there's reasons for these policies, even if they're not readily apparent. The store that the thief was stealing from (and using a stolen credit card at) had such a policy. She could have been much healthier and been able to finish nursing school at that time had the employee followed it.

I guess you don't know Miss Teen South Carolina...

..sigh, what happened to humor in this world.

sweet. everybody get your crow bars and let's go to home depot! FREE COKES!

Seriously, shouldn't that be one of the first things mentioned during training for any floor staff, and posted prominently in the employee lounge?

=============================================
Someone above suggested that the guy have a customer help him as the customer would not get in trouble.

Here a nice bystander goes to help out a Target AP Thug and gets stabbed by the shoplifter.

Does Target want to compensate the person? Well read on folks. But in summary it was sent back to the Ok. District Court so the case goes forward.

====================================

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

--------------------------------------------------

TIMOTHY S. THERRIEN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-5110
(D.C. No. 06-CV-217-JHP-FHM)
(N.D. Okla.)

--------------------------------------------------------

ORDER AND JUDGMENT(*)

-------------------------------------------------------

Before HOLMES, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

-------------------------------------------------------

Timothy S. Therrien was shopping at a Target store when a Target loss-prevention employee confronted a suspected shoplifter. The Target employee and the suspect became involved in a physical confrontation. When the suspect began to overwhelm the employee, the employee called out to bystanders for help, and Mr. Therrien responded. During the ensuing struggle, the suspect stabbed and injured Mr. Therrien. Alleging various theories of negligence, Mr. Therrien filed suit against Target Corporation in Oklahoma state court. Target removed the case to federal district court and moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for dismissal of the complaint.

The district court granted Target's motion, and Mr. Therrien appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

I. Standard of Review
We review de novo a district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1181 (10th Cir. 2002). We take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). "The issue in reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint is not whether the plaintiff will prevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence to support [his] claims." Ruiz, 299 F.3d at 1181. Because this is a diversity case, we apply federal law to procedural questions, but state law to the analysis of the underlying claims. Haberman v. The Hartford Ins. Group, 443 F.3d 1257, 1264 (10th Cir. 2006).

II. Analysis
Mr. Therrien argues that he set forth at least five distinct claims: (1) negligent provision of store security; (2) negligent training and supervision; (3) negligent handling of the situation with the suspect leading to the physical altercation; (4) negligently requesting assistance and directing such assistance from bystanders; and (5) liability under the rescue doctrine. To proceed with a claim of negligence under Oklahoma law, Mr. Therrien must establish that (1) Target owed him a duty to protect him from injury; (2) Target failed properly to perform its duty; and (3) he suffered injuries that were proximately caused by Target's breach of its duty. See Jackson v. Jones, 907 P.2d 1067, 1071-72 (Okla. 1995).

A. Oklahoma Landowner Liability for Criminal Attacks
The primary issue is whether Target owed Mr. Therrien a duty to protect him from injury from a criminal attack by a third party. Mr. Therrien contends that, under Oklahoma law, Target has a duty to use reasonable care to prevent a criminal attack when it knows that the attack is occurring or is about to occur. See Taylor v. Hynson, 856 P.2d 278, 281 (Okla. 1993).

Oklahoma premises liability law classifies Mr. Therrien as an invitee. See id. ("It is well established that a person who goes on land to conduct business is a business invitee for the purposes of establishing liability."). A business generally does not have a duty to protect an invitee from criminal attacks by third persons. Id. Oklahoma, however, has recognized such a duty in "unique circumstances." Id. An invitor's knowledge "that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur" may constitute such circumstances. Id. at 281-82 (quotation omitted). Thus, Oklahoma law recognizes that, "[w]hen an invitor has knowledge that an invitee is in imminent danger, the invitor must act reasonably to prevent injury." Id. at 281.

In Morgan v. Southland Associates, 883 P.2d 205, 206 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994), a case involving a criminal attack on plaintiff at a mall food court, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's petitions. After describing Taylor's teachings, the court stated that because plaintiff had pleaded defendant's knowledge of the attack, which would give rise to a duty on defendant's part, as well as breach of the duty and damages, the trial court had erred in dismissing the petitions for failure to state a claim. Id. at 207. "To hold otherwise would be to find that the rule a business invitor has no duty to protect invitees from criminal acts of third parties is absolute." Id. at 206-07.

Similarly, Mr. Therrien pleaded that Target was aware that a criminal act was imminent or occurring, so that Target had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent the suspect from harming Mr. Therrien; that Target breached its duty; and that Mr. Therrien suffered harm as a "direct and proximate result" of Target's breach. Aplt. App. at 7-9. As in Morgan, these allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Taylor.

Target urges us to decide that the fight between the Target employee and the suspect was an open and obvious condition and that Mr. Therrien had knowledge equal to Target of the unsafe condition, so that Target owed Mr. Therrien no duty of care. See, e.g., Dover v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 111 P.3d 243, 245 (Okla. 2005) ("There is no duty to warn the invitee of any defect or danger which is as well-known to the invitee as to the owner or occupant or which is obvious or which should be observed by the invitee in the exercise of ordinary care."); Pickens v. Tulsa Metro. Ministry, 951 P.2d 1079, 1084 (Okla. 1997) ("Even vis-a-vis an invitee, to whom a landowner owes the highest duty . . ., the law does not require that the landowner protect the invitee against dangers which are so apparent and readily observable that one would reasonably expect them to be discovered.").

But since Taylor, Oklahoma's premises liability cases involving criminal attacks focus on the invitor's knowledge of criminal activity; they do not appear to incorporate the "open and obvious danger" analysis found in physical-defects cases. See, e.g., Taylor, 856 P.2d at 281-82; Rogers v. Burger King Corp., 82 P.3d 116, 122-23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003); Young v. Bob Howard Auto., Inc., 52 P.3d 1045, 1048-49 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002); McClure v. Group K Enters., Inc., 977 P.2d 1148, 1150-51 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999); Folmar v. Marriott, Inc., 918 P.2d 86, 87-89 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996); Edington v. A & P Enters., Inc., 900 P.2d 453, 455 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994); Morgan, 883 P.2d at 206-07; see also Wells v. Boston Ave. Realty, 125 F.3d 1335, 1340 (10th Cir. 1997) ("Plaintiff has cited no cases that support treating a criminal assault as a 'defect' creating premises liability."). In any event, whether or not a particular condition is open and obvious generally requires an examination of all of the circumstances. Zagal v. Truckstops Corp. of Am., 948 P.2d 273, 275 (Okla. 1997). Thus, we decline to hold, at this initial stage of the proceedings, that the "open and obvious danger" rule necessarily bars Mr. Therrien's claim as a matter of law.

Target also argues that Mr. Therrien's "attempt to create five distinct claims is contrary to law." Aplee. Br. at 9. We agree that four of Mr. Therrien's five claims (the exception being the negligent training and supervision claim) appear to stem from Taylor, rather than stating separate bases for recovery. But in light of the limited record before this court, we will let the district court evaluate each of Mr. Therrien's claims in the first instance to determine whether each should proceed separately.

B. Negligent Training and Supervision
Mr. Therrien also alleges that Target was negligent in its training and supervision of the loss prevention employee. This claim invokes a recognized basis for recovery in Oklahoma: "[e]mployers may be held liable for negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining an employee." N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 998 P.2d 592, 600 (Okla. 1999); see also Morgan, 883 P.2d at 206-07 (reversing dismissal of petition that included claims of negligent training). Negligent hiring and supervision is a separate theory of recovery based on the employer's direct negligence, rather than liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. N.H., 998 P.2d at 600. In Oklahoma, this claim is only available if an employer's vicarious liability is not established. Id. Consequently, while Mr. Therrien has stated a claim sufficient to withstand a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on this issue, how far this claim can proceed will depend on the evidence before the district court during further proceedings.

III.
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings in the district court.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
----

[targetfiling.blogspot.com]

I worked at Home Depot about 6 years ago, I used to stop people all the time.

One guy tried to roll out with 5 air conditioners on a lumber cart. "Excuse me sir, may I check your receipt?" "Oh...yea...I just pulled up my car to load these up and left it in the car - hold on, I'll go get it." "OK." Needless to say, he didn't come back.

I knew it was company policy to never follow a [suspected] thief outside of the building and it was a definite no-no to tackle anyone.

The store manager eventually got "moved to another store" because of such a horrible shrink rate (I heard 8.5%). For every $100 of merchandise sold, $8.50 was stolen - awesome!

This is policy for every retailer. It's too much liability for them to have employees going after thieves. He was just unlucky to not know about it.

What bothers me more...how does this guy know he was a thief?

He had a crowbar.
He had a wad of cash.

Well...that's great.

Home Depot sells crowbars.
Crowbars are purchased with cash.

He noticed that a guy was standing outside with money and a crowbar and tried to detain him? How is this any different than detaining a guy who doesn't show a receipt?

This is a policy at Best Buy too. Not even the loss prevention personnel can pursue a shoplifter. The reason, as it was explained to me, is that if this policy were not in place, and the shoplifter is harmed in any way, they could sue the store and have a very good case. Also, the person who is confronting the shoplifter can be hurt, which creates insurance issues for the company, and can also result in a lawsuit by the employee. With surveillance technology in place at all these types of places, management wants their employees safe, and to let the police do their job. Imagine if Mr. Crowbar had a gun and shot poor Dustin?

That however does not excuse Home Depot for not letting all employees know that they are not to chase/detain a shoplifter. I would have not known about the policy at Best Buy had I not overheard a loss prevention person talking about it with a manager. The same thing had happened at another store and the LP employee was terminated.

For those who think they can walk in and steal with impunity since no one is supposed to forcibly detain you, remember Big Brother is watching. Crime doesn't pay! Just say no!

that said, i worked for campus security while i was in college. we were a division of the university police department (we looked like cops), but even we weren't authorized to detain people. our only course of action was to ask a person for ID. if they refused, we could not force them or even stand in their way. detaining a person would not only get us canned, but could land us in jail.

i don't agree with HD, but i understand their position. dustin was acting outside of the law & continuing to retain his services could expose them to financial liability.

dustin, good luck in the future & kudos for doing the right thing - even if it cost you your job. being righteous isn't always easy, but it's people like you that make this world a better place to live in. thanks.

I am so disappointed in the state of accountablity in this country. Let everybody get away with everything because we might be sued? Why is everybody in this country afraid to DO THE RIGHT THING?

I'll keep going to Lowes.

Look on the bright side. You no longer are going to need another job because you're set for life!

I fully support what Dustin Chester did and personally wish that the laws protected him and his rare case of HAVING A PAIR. It makes me a little sick to hear stoies like this were men, who are looking out for the good of society, are punnished simply becuase they decided that it was in the best interest of the planet to act. It's every individuals personal decision how to handle their actions, he chose to put himself aside and make an effort to stop a crime, that was detrimental to his employer, and the customers his employer needs.

It's outrageous that companies will simply tack on another dollar to my purchase, rather than let men who choose to be proactive and correct situations like this get the job done. If Dustin didn't feel like acting he could have walked away. He chose to step up and it sucks he can be treated this way.

Dustin: (Grinning) Why yes.

Prospective New Employer: Oh? And may I ask why you were fired?

Dustin: (Still smiling) Funny you should ask...

@Felix the Cat: And the most wasted space at the end of a post award goes to: Felix the Cat.

Most stores have similar policies but loads of employees have no idea about them.

Here is a bit of what Target has to say about Employee Theft, from their Target AP Directives 2006, the entire text can be found at:

[targetfiling.blogspot.com]

=================================

C. Five Steps for Apprehension
Certified AP team members must observe all five steps prior to making a shoplifter apprehension.

NOTE: If local law enforcement takes independent action and makes an apprehension before all five steps are met, the details must be documented in the CIRS report.

1. Initiation of Observation - The subject must enter the store/area without possession of Target merchandise.
2. Selection - The subject must be observed selecting Target merchandise from the display location.
3. Concealment - The subject must be observed concealing the merchandise, or the AP team member must have NO reasonable doubt based on observations that the merchandise has been concealed by the subject.
NOTE: If the merchandise is not actually concealed, it must be exposed as the subject exits or attempts to exit the store.
4. Maintain Observation - The AP team member must maintain sufficient surveillance of the subject in order to know the location of the merchandise and ensure the subject does not discard the merchandise.

NOTE: A Productive Merchandise Recovery (PMR) shall be attempted if surveillance is broken for any reason, or the AP team member can not maintain sufficient surveillance. (See PMR Directive).

5. Failure to Pay for Merchandise/Exiting the Store -AP team member(s) must observe the subject attempt to exit the store without paying for the merchandise.

NOTE: Some jurisdictions allow variances from the exiting requirement to allow apprehensions of concealed merchandise before an individual reaches the building's exit. In these cases, the requirements must be documented and approved by the Director or Vice President of Assets Protection using the "Variance from Exiting Form" (found on the AP Zone).

-----------------
D. Restroom / Fitting Room Apprehensions
AP team members are not allowed to conduct surveillance or make apprehensions in restroom and/or fitting rooms.
1. AP team members are not allowed to follow subject's into a restroom or fitting room to conduct surveillance.
2. AP team members shall not ask another team member to enter a fitting room or restroom to conduct surveillance.
---------------
B. Searches of Private Residence or Motor Vehicles
1. AP team members will NOT participate in a search of a private residence or motor vehicle.
--------------
1. Fleeing Shoplifter
a. If a shoplifter attempts to flee after being confronted, do not give chase in any manner (running, driving, etc.).
b. Store based AP team members shall not use any vehicle to follow or pursue a subject for any reason.
c. AP team members shall not encourage, condone, suggest or ask another Target team member or anyone else to chase a fleeing shoplifter.
----------------
2. AP shall refer for prosecution all individuals apprehended for retail theft when the value of the merchandise is $20.00 or greater and the case meets local prosecution requirements.

NOTE: If a case meets/exceeds the $20.00 referral guideline, but is NOT referred, the reason for non-referral must be included in the CIRS narrative. (Example: Local jurisdiction limits require merchandise in excess of $75.00 in order for prosecution.)

3. A team member witness, of the same gender of the suspected shoplifter , must be present in the room at all times during the detention.

--------------

A. Photographing Shoplifters
1. Adult shoplifters - AP shall photograph all adult shoplifters unless prohibited by local statutes or ordinances.
2. Team Member Shoplifters - AP will not photograph any team member apprehended for shoplifting during working or non-working hours.
3. Juvenile Shoplifters - AP will not photograph any juveniles apprehended for shoplifting, unless required by local statutes or ordinances.

========================

and you can look at:
[targetstoressecurity.blogspot.com]

@CamilleR: If you've worked in retail at all, you'd know that retailers like to minimize "shrink". On the other hand, if you've watched Seinfeld at all, you'd know that the episode about "significant shrinkage" is really funny.

If anything, Home Depot should offer the thief a job for the inconvenience that bastard ex-employee caused.

I wonder what the policy is on yelling "Stop! Thief!"

I'll be willing to wager another customer in some stores would haul him to the ground for you, absolving you of your responsibility, then you can mock him from the sidelines or do paperwork while the customers keep him on the floor...

If HD says that employees aren't to stop people from stealing that's their prerogative. But, firing them seems a bit extreme.

He would have got away with it too...

If it wasn't for that darn kid and his talking dog.

kp

This really should be titled "Home Depot Fires another Employee for DETAINING a Thief".

It's not about letting theives walk a way with stuff, it's about not physically confronting them.

Good avice for shopping at HD next time. I'll take it into consideration. Why pay when you can steal and not face justice system?

A friend of mine had her purse stolen while she was shopping at HD and had a hell of a time trying to get any of the HD employees to help her. They refused to call the police or allow her to use their phone to contact her credit card companies. (A sympathetic customer let her borrow a cell phone.) Once the police arrived HD even refused to give them access to the security cameras! Guess who shops at Lowe's now?

MEMO TO DUSTIN (a.k.a. HICK-IN-TRAINING):

If some ignorant red-neck with a crowbar really needs a drink that bad, let him have it. Vending machines can be replaced. Human life and limb, not so much.

This is an interesting contrast from the intellectual property cartels who violate their own customers' rights a little more each day to allegedly combat theft. Home Depot is rolling out the red carpet for it's potential thieves - and they probably aren't even buying anything!

@flintstone03: HA! You beat me to it. I'll tell you what...you go left and I'll go right...that way they can send nobody to catch us in both directions.

I would feel bad for this guy but I'm sure another store near him that needs a good PR boost will hire him and pay him more shortly.

Well, this is awesome news for thieves.