I think, with respect, the human frailties you point to exist with the shop owners themselves potentially. So if you bring loss prevention officers in, they possess those same potential frailties.
So I don't see this as expanding.... In fact it already exists. The LPOs, the loss prevention officers I spoke of, are the ones who are actually carrying out a large portion of the arrests in the larger chains. In the smaller chains, obviously, it is the shop owners. So when you look at it, really it goes both ways. Whether it's the shop owner or the loss prevention officer, they still have to be able to apply the law lawfully. They can't go to these types of grounds that aren't grounds. They're impermissible inferences. You can't go there.
So I'm not too concerned about it at all. What I'm more concerned about is the fact that people are acting under circumstances that I believe most of society would expect, and yet right now there appears to be a gap, because, as you pointed out, it's the “finds committing” that is the problem that I think needs to be considered by this committee, the fact that in essence we have a broad class of citizens typically being the agents of the property owner, who are entrusted to carry out this activity because the police can't be in all places. And yet there is a gap, and I believe there's a gap even in the proposed legislation.