Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City (Donations welcome, the ACLU will get most of it)
MichaelRighi.com ^ | September 2nd, 2007 | Michael Righi,

Posted on 09/03/2007 3:19:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat

Today was an eventful day. I drove to Cleveland, reunited with my father’s side of the family and got arrested. More on that arrested part to come.

For the labor day weekend my father decided to host a small family reunion. My sister flew in from California and I drove in from Pittsburgh to visit my father, his wife and my little brother and sister. Shortly after arriving we packed the whole family into my father’s Buick and headed off to the grocery store to buy some ingredients to make monkeybread. (It’s my little sister’s birthday today and that was her cute/bizare birthday request.)

Next to the grocery store was a Circuit City. (The Brooklyn, Ohio Circuit City to be exact.) Having forgotten that it was my sister’s birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. I settled on Disney’s “Cars” game for the Nintendo Wii. I also needed to purchase a Power Squid surge protector which I paid for separately with my business credit card. As I headed towards the exit doors I passed a gentleman whose name I would later learn is Santura. As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”

As I walked through the double doors I heard Santura yelling for his manager behind me. My father and the family had the Buick pulled up waiting for me outside the doors to Circuit City. I opened the door and got into the back seat while Santura and his manager, whose name I have since learned is Joe Atha, came running up to the vehicle.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsite.michaelrighi.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abuse; privacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 551-555 next last
To: Blennos

I would think the Uniform Commercial Code probably suggests otherwise. 30 years ago, most people studying Business Law favored Blackstone’s perspectives. I’ve noticed that even lawyers in the last 20 years don’t agree upon the basics of Business Law when considering property rights.

The law would focus upon the transaction and if it had been completed in determining ownership of property being removed from the store.

Once completed, the property was now legitimately owned by a new owner.

The issue of being stopped in a public place, being forced to show proof of that ownership, is entirely separate from the purchase of the merchandise. Most stores, though, prefer to not encroach upon the privacy of their good customers, real or perceived (the customer is always right perspective). (Ever notice how the same stores inspecting your receipt prior to exit, tend to also be the same stores which accept merchandise returns even eithout a receipt? Not too consistent..)

If one attempts to argue for the store, claiming the transaction was stipulatively established, notifying the customer such a purchase wouldn’t be complete until exiting the premises, then the store exposes itself to charges of perhaps unlawful detainment, kidnapping or entrapment because the store designed the routes available for shoppers to exit their establishment.

If the store failed to respect the basics of a transaction by allowing honest shoppers a method of leaving the store unimpeded and respecting their personal privacy, then the store may be liable for even more civil infringements upon not only purchasers, but the public in general. (I believe Fry’s used to have 2 queues to route the public through,...one after the check-out line without search and a second one for those exiting the store without purchase, with search. This would appear more legitimate, although Fry’s also wouldn’t accept a private check, but would accept a credit card ..go figure.)

The argument that the customer is entering private property, therefore must abide by the local rules, also ignores the publicly acceptance of the UCC, not to mention a number of codes which the establishment was zoned under to attract public business (Circuit City isn’t a private club, it’s open to the public.)

IMHO, the emergence of receipt checkers has probably been a common sensical response by store managers to provide some sort of defense from cultural permissiveness in shoplifting. It fails to manage the store floor plan with the cultural elements understood to comprise the purchase transaction.

When the floor plan of the store is established by franchising agreements, then an even deeper pocket is condoning the behavior. A local store manager might implement the policy to control losses, even though he really doesn’t fully benefit from the complete store profits, so he’s only a cog in the machine.

Most managers with wherewithal, place more value on their client base which brings them business. Those stores which become more public, not reliant upon goodwill of a client base, are probably more prone to this type of infringement on good customers. Costco is a good example, where it also has a membership requirement.

IMHO, I find it interesting that the same large franchises, also happen to offer the least resistance to product returns without receipt, which also happens to encourage theft in the community while the store becomes the ‘fence’.


201 posted on 09/04/2007 4:34:55 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK

I wonder how the ‘meeting of the minds’ is conducted in ‘self-help’ automated check out counters.


202 posted on 09/04/2007 4:48:28 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: geopyg

Costco had a similar policy at the exit,..they actually showed me where they had double charged me on a case of Cokes and I went back to get another. Under the cover of Quality Control, they doubled as disincentive for shoplifting. It also helped keep the checkers honest.


203 posted on 09/04/2007 4:53:38 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: teledude

I kind of agree with you. The only time it irks me - regardless of the store - is if it is slow and the guy that is suppose to check for reciepts sees me come up to the cash register, watches me the entire time, and then still asks for a receipt. Hey - didn’t you just witness the transaction?


204 posted on 09/04/2007 5:06:34 AM PDT by 7thson (I've got a seat at the big conference table! I'm gonna paint my logo on it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK

From the customer’s perspective, the six elements of a contract were completed at the cash register transaction in the case cited.

If the customer wanted to really get nasty, he could document the parking lot markings and traffic design, then take the large corporation to court for violating the MUTCD which is now been approved by most state legislatures, the same as the UCC is also approved by most states.

The merchant not only has to overcome the burden of proof regarding the transaction at the register, there is also the UCC to contend with, which if the merchant poses stipulative rules above and beyond the UCC, might be infringing upon the intent of state law authorizing the UCC.

I wonder if Circuit City could lose its Business licenses in that state over the issue.


205 posted on 09/04/2007 5:25:15 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
On a practical level, nothing. You give consent when you walk in. Don't like it? Don't walk in.

No, you really don't.
206 posted on 09/04/2007 5:31:59 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
>>>>If the customer wanted to really get nasty, he could document the parking lot markings and traffic design, then take the large corporation to court for violating the MUTCD which is now been approved by most state legislatures, the same as the UCC is also approved by most states.

Please, let’s not play lawyer. Where is it law that the MUTCD must be adhered to on private property? Where are the proposed plaintiff’s damages. Comment is BS

2. The merchant not only has to overcome the burden of proof regarding the transaction at the register, there is also the UCC to contend with, which if the merchant poses stipulative rules above and beyond the UCC, might be infringing upon the intent of state law authorizing the UCC.

Merchant was fine demanding to see receipt. Merchant was on shaky ground detaining/arresting (yes, it was an arrest. Shopper was told he could not leave and physical action was taken to prevent him from doing so) shopper once he had left the store.

Law gives store right to take reasonable steps to ensure shoplifting/theft has not occurred, but if they accuse publicly, they had better be right.

Shopper had great case going until he began to look like loonie for failing to show ID.

207 posted on 09/04/2007 5:34:19 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
>>>>If the customer wanted to really get nasty, he could document the parking lot markings and traffic design, then take the large corporation to court for violating the MUTCD which is now been approved by most state legislatures, the same as the UCC is also approved by most states.

Please, let’s not play lawyer. Where is it law that the MUTCD must be adhered to on private property? Where are the proposed plaintiff’s damages. Comment is BS

2. The merchant not only has to overcome the burden of proof regarding the transaction at the register, there is also the UCC to contend with, which if the merchant poses stipulative rules above and beyond the UCC, might be infringing upon the intent of state law authorizing the UCC.

Merchant was fine demanding to see receipt. Merchant was on shaky ground detaining/arresting (yes, it was an arrest. Shopper was told he could not leave and physical action was taken to prevent him from doing so) shopper once he had left the store.

Law gives store right to take reasonable steps to ensure shoplifting/theft has not occurred, but if they accuse publicly, they had better be right.

Shopper had great case going until he began to look like loonie for failing to show ID.

208 posted on 09/04/2007 5:34:28 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
>>>>If the customer wanted to really get nasty, he could document the parking lot markings and traffic design, then take the large corporation to court for violating the MUTCD which is now been approved by most state legislatures, the same as the UCC is also approved by most states.

Please, let’s not play lawyer. Where is it law that the MUTCD must be adhered to on private property? Where are the proposed plaintiff’s damages. Comment is BS

2. The merchant not only has to overcome the burden of proof regarding the transaction at the register, there is also the UCC to contend with, which if the merchant poses stipulative rules above and beyond the UCC, might be infringing upon the intent of state law authorizing the UCC.

Merchant was fine demanding to see receipt. Merchant was on shaky ground detaining/arresting (yes, it was an arrest. Shopper was told he could not leave and physical action was taken to prevent him from doing so) shopper once he had left the store.

Law gives store right to take reasonable steps to ensure shoplifting/theft has not occurred, but if they accuse publicly, they had better be right.

Shopper had great case going until he began to look like loonie for failing to show ID.

209 posted on 09/04/2007 5:34:36 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

The difference between Costco and any retail store is that at a place like Costco or Sam’s, you sign in your membership contract that your bags can be searched. There is no such thing at a retail outlet that you can just walk into.


210 posted on 09/04/2007 5:34:47 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
No, you really don't.

That was just my personal opinion, I haven't looked up law on it so I could be wrong. Obviously if the law says they can't then no policy they have saying they can is enforceable. I don't like unseen, heavily biased adherence contracts. In that case, walk away from the security guy with impunity.

211 posted on 09/04/2007 5:36:46 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

The US Supremes have already decided that a man on private property, not driving, must still show ID to an officer of the law if requested to do so. Cheers, comrade!


212 posted on 09/04/2007 5:39:45 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (How hot does it have to get for a burning concrete lion to experience spalling? Anybody know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I haven't looked up law on it so I could be wrong.

But that hasn't stopped you from siding with potential criminals like usual.

213 posted on 09/04/2007 5:42:36 AM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I would bet the stores could even put up signs that say “We will be checking your receipt on the way out”, and you could still breeze by security if you so desired.


214 posted on 09/04/2007 5:45:53 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
“””You cannot leave Fry’s without a bag check either.””” “””You can’t with Walmart either.”””

Sure you can. Just say "No, thank you", and keep on walking.
215 posted on 09/04/2007 5:47:18 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK
The terms of the sale have not been consumated.

They told him the asking price, he paid, they accepted, they put his goods in a bag and gave them to him. AFAIK that completed the sale, so the check happens after the sale at a time when the goods are his property.

216 posted on 09/04/2007 5:49:04 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK

BTW, I don’t intend to pick on you (although I’m right and you’re wrong ;^).... ) , but I’m also the first one to admit there is a lot of the law which I’m not intuitive about as I wish I might be.

It’s interesting how the Constitution allows our laws to blend so well with emerging/divergent culture.

UCC only came about in the 1950s and is frequently accepted as authoritative, I suspect probably because most people in upper middle business studied it in Business Law courses in college.

I have also noticed about 10 years ago, many of the elements within contract law used by the UCC, are not as commonly accepted by more recent law school graduates.

One aspect of business I have not been closely involved in, is how the multinational 100,000+ SF shopping center franchise networks develop their plans and policies. From speaking with Architects, I know some are designed on a case by case basis, yet their similarity implies a lot of cut & paste from past design. Their floor plans imply somebody has reviewed policies such as receipt checking and I would fully expect each chain has a number of law firms employed from each state to review particular legal issues in commercial law and codes.

For example, we notice how the large shopping centers are overtaking nearly all other markets with a one shop complex. Those complexes are also modifying the common culture and how business is conducted.

For example, many items no longer have a price indicated on them, other than a barcode. Even services, such as Kinkos fails to post their price schedules making it very awkward to shop and compare prices.

Policies such as ‘the customer is always right’, seem to also promote others such as Orchard Supply Hardware’s acceptance of any and all return merchandise without receipt or packaging. Customer beware, no longer seems to be the standard for many of these establishments, yet I wonder how the actual cost on public goods has been effected by these policies, as they might give that one merchant more market share, but increases theft and burglary in the community.

In the computer age, stores don’t always advertise their pricing, so the consumer model is greatly altered.

Automated check out lines vice checkers, large stores vs Mom & Pop stores, Home Depot and Lowes vs local lumber mills and hardware stores.

(Maybe I’m just getting old...er, sigh)


217 posted on 09/04/2007 5:52:43 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

I’ll repeat what I said a little bit ago: The difference with Sam’s and Costco is that you sign a membership contract. You do no such thing with a place like Circuit City or Wally’s World.


218 posted on 09/04/2007 5:55:31 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

You are required to provide an identity. Giving your name, address, and date of birth to an officer counts as that, and does not require a driver’s license.


219 posted on 09/04/2007 5:56:37 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink
It seems to me that the police officer, due to the call to come to the store and his observations upon arriving, had reasonable suspicion this was a shoplifting incident and requested the ID from the alledged shoplifter.

The police officer had already confirmed the guy had not stolen anything before demanding ID.

220 posted on 09/04/2007 5:57:05 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
You could be arrested for failing to provide your drivers' license if you are in your vehicle and don't have it with you but you shouldn't have been arrested for identifying yourself which you did. The officer had no cause to ask for your drivers' license. That was just bogus.

A couple years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case similar to this in which a fellow was arrested for not producing identification despite that he was not driving. His arrest was upheld.

221 posted on 09/04/2007 6:02:50 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
Walmart and Best Buy check your receipt at the door; you know that going in.

If you don’t like it, don’t go in.

Hmmm. Under that line of reasoning, you could substitute anything for "...check your receipt at the door..." and it would be okay.

What if it was:

Walmart and Best Buy perform a strip search at the door; you know that going in.

If you don’t like it, don’t go in.

Or even:

Walmart and Best Buy have thugs that slap you around before you leave; you know that going in.

If you don’t like it, don’t go in.

That wouldn't be okay, would it? Of course not. It's ludicrous to even entertain the notion.

The idea being that just because you are aware of store policy going in doesn't make the policy okay.

222 posted on 09/04/2007 6:06:00 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
#3, In most states, when the manager hindered/physically prevented you leaving and told you you could not leave, he arrested you, whether or not word arrest was ever used. You had $50,000 false arrest case going for a while.

Most, if not all, states have laws allowing shopkeepers to detain suspected shoplifters. If you refuse to show a receipt for your "purchase" upon leaving the store, that is going to raise an inference of shoplifting. It's just simply not a false arrest.

223 posted on 09/04/2007 6:08:00 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee
Ditto. I have been stopped at the local Wal-Mart before and checked,and it’s a two-second process.Not a big deal. I don’t mind,if it cuts down on theft and helps keep prices down.

Strange response from a guy with your screen name.

224 posted on 09/04/2007 6:10:30 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
If you refuse to show a receipt for your "purchase" upon leaving the store, that is going to raise an inference of shoplifting.

Sorry, refusal to show a receipt does not constitute reasonable grounds for detainment, especially when you ask everyone for the receipt, otherwise you are saying you suspect EVERYONE of shoplifting. Those laws that allow detainment all pretty much require someone to have witnessed the person putting it in their pocket, and then continual monitoring as the person skipped the checkout counter and out the door. Asking someone if they stole something, and then detaining them when they say "no", also does not constitute grounds for detainment.
225 posted on 09/04/2007 6:13:23 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Borian
“please don’t pick my foxhole to sit in. I want to know someone is going to be there when the going gets tough.” I got your back dude. If someone ever demands to see your receipt in a fox hole, I’ll go down swinging...heh.

Got a foxhole for three? I'm in.

226 posted on 09/04/2007 6:14:30 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
refusal to show a receipt does not constitute reasonable grounds for detainment

That depends on whether or not you are on private propery. They have a lot of latitude when you are on their property. The best idea is to stay off their property if they engage in this behavior. But I suspect most offended people are powerless to do that because they are sheeple.

227 posted on 09/04/2007 6:18:03 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Inside the store, they had a right to detain him if they suspected him of shoplifting.

Really, even inside the store they would have had no right to detain him, unless they caught him on camera, or someone witnessed it.
228 posted on 09/04/2007 6:19:09 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
Sorry, refusal to show a receipt does not constitute reasonable grounds for detainment, especially when you ask everyone for the receipt, otherwise you are saying you suspect EVERYONE of shoplifting.

No, you're not suspecting everyone of shoplifting. You are suspecting the people who don't show their receipt of shoplifting, which is a reasonable inference. There is simply no reason for a non-shoplifter not to show a receipt. It benefits everyone. It helps the store control shrinkage and helps keep prices down, which benefits consumers.

This guy refused to show is receipt; he was detained. He tried to leave--which is attempted escape (a crime with which he ought be charged)--and he paid a little bit of a price for it. If you want to be a jerk, be prepared for the consequences.

229 posted on 09/04/2007 6:23:48 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
That depends on whether or not you are on private propery.

No, it doesn't. The grounds for your detainment must happen BEFORE the inquiry of the detainee. The store retains the right to ask him to leave their property, however.

The best idea is to stay off their property if they engage in this behavior.

A good idea, but most stores don't exactly advertise the fact that they check receipts. I like the idea people have had to immediately walk to the return counter when asked to show a receipt.
230 posted on 09/04/2007 6:24:40 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
You are suspecting the people who don't show their receipt of shoplifting, which is a reasonable inference.

No, it's not, anymore than asserting your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent means you are guilty of a crime. Assertion of your rights cannot be used against you.

There is simply no reason for a non-shoplifter not to show a receipt.

Sure there is. "I would prefer not to be treated like a criminal in your store". Reason enough?

It benefits everyone. It helps the store control shrinkage and helps keep prices down, which benefits consumers.

There are many, MANY other ways to accomplish that. For instance, for big ticket items, you hand the person a tag to pay for the item, and then the customer turns in the tag at a loading dock. Not to mention that most theft is done by employees.

This guy refused to show is receipt; he was detained.

And he will get a nice check from his unlawful detainment suit.

He tried to leave--which is attempted escape his right

Fixed that for you.

If you want to be a jerk, be prepared for the consequences.I wasn't aware that being a jerk was illegal nowadays. We're going to have to build more prisons!
231 posted on 09/04/2007 6:30:24 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

This case is similar to what happened when I was a teen. A convenience store limited the number of teens in the store at one time. The teens argued he was discriminating. He argued it was his property and he was protecting it.

The one thing I remember is that teens would still go to the store. Even the ones making the most noise.


232 posted on 09/04/2007 6:31:01 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Wheee The People

How then can they deal with shoplifting and screening items leaving the store if they can’t look into the bag. That’s what I meant by inspect?


233 posted on 09/04/2007 6:31:16 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
That depends on whether or not you are on private propery.

Are commercial stores private property, though? In several instances they are treated as being public property--ADA enforcement comes to mind. Right of entrance comes to mind (With certain specific exemptions). Discrimination laws also apply.

However, they are owned by private individuals or companies. I'm not sure what their status legally is--does it change from instance to instance?

234 posted on 09/04/2007 6:31:49 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

He sounds like a jerk who got what he deserved.


235 posted on 09/04/2007 6:33:02 AM PDT by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll

You make an lot of statements as if they were FACTS, yet commercial law is state by state, so there are many different, likely conflicting, sets of situations and laws that you are stating as facts. How do you reconcile that?


236 posted on 09/04/2007 6:33:32 AM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

There is a bit of a difference in that the store reserves the right to refuse business with anyone, and so he was probably within his rights to limit the number of people. You can pretty much put whatever conditions of entry to your property that you want, but you can’t bar people from exiting.


237 posted on 09/04/2007 6:33:53 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Of course, being on Circuit City property is not “out in public.” You’re on their property.


238 posted on 09/04/2007 6:34:20 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
No, it's not, anymore than asserting your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent means you are guilty of a crime. Assertion of your rights cannot be used against you.

What right?

Sure there is. "I would prefer not to be treated like a criminal in your store". Reason enough?

No, not reason enough. You are being unreasonable. If you act like a thief, be prepared to be treated like one.

There are many, MANY other ways to accomplish that. For instance, for big ticket items, you hand the person a tag to pay for the item, and then the customer turns in the tag at a loading dock. Not to mention that most theft is done by employees.

It doesn't matter whether there are other ways to reduce shrinkage or even whether or not most theft is done by employees, which I agree that it is. What matters is that the store has instituted an anti-theft policy, which may be one of many (seen or unseen by the general public) designed to reduce shrinkage. That benefits the store, the shareholders, and the public.

He tried to leave--which is attempted escape his right Fixed that for you.

This is escape under Ohio law. If a storekeeper has detained you and you try to leave, you have attempted escape, which is a criminal offense.

I wasn't aware that being a jerk was illegal nowadays. We're going to have to build more prisons!

It's not illegal. But when this man chose the course of his actions, he made some mistakes. Larger, more serious mistakes followed. Those actions have consequences.

239 posted on 09/04/2007 6:35:32 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
How then can they deal with shoplifting and screening items leaving the store if they can’t look into the bag.

There are about a billion other ways, including designing the store so that you can only exit by going through a checkout lane. Putting a minimum wage monkey at the door is merely so that the store LOOKS tough on shoplifting, it doesn't really accomplish anything.
240 posted on 09/04/2007 6:36:16 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

“Slippery slope” doesn’t apply here.

Not sure why so many are so eager to bring an end to this practice. It’s not an invasion of privacy. It’s not a “slippery slope” to strip searches and background checks. It’s an effort to stop shoplifting.


241 posted on 09/04/2007 6:40:39 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
What right?

How about the Fourth Amendment?

No, not reason enough. You are being unreasonable. If you act like a thief, be prepared to be treated like one.

No, it is reason enough. The store is not allowed to search my property, and once I have completed the transaction, it is my property. Are you going to start asking me for a receipt for all the clothes I'm wearing, as well? I might have stolen one of them, too!

It doesn't matter whether there are other ways to reduce shrinkage or even whether or not most theft is done by employees, which I agree that it is. What matters is that the store has instituted an anti-theft policy, which may be one of many (seen or unseen by the general public) designed to reduce shrinkage. That benefits the store, the shareholders, and the public.

The store is certainly within their right to ask if they can check my receipt. I am also within my right to either allow them to check it, or say "no, thanks", and keep walking.

This is escape under Ohio law. If a storekeeper has detained you and you try to leave, you have attempted escape, which is a criminal offense.No, he was trying to leave the property, and the manager unlawfully detained him.

It's not illegal. But when this man chose the course of his actions, he made some mistakes. Larger, more serious mistakes followed. Those actions have consequences.

I'll agree with you that mistakes were made. The manager made a mistake by impeding the person from leaving the property. The officer made a mistake by arresting the person even after an identity was provided (photo ID is not required). If asserting your rights makes you a "jerk", then I wish that more Americans were jerks.
242 posted on 09/04/2007 6:42:58 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Theo
It’s not an invasion of privacy.

Yes, it is. It's an unreasonable search of my possessions. Would you also like to see the receipt for the clothes on my back, to make sure I didn't steal them, either?
243 posted on 09/04/2007 6:44:12 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I thought Circuit City was private property and entry carried an implied consent to have one’s bags searched. I always cooperate with security personnel at stores and have never been unduly hasseled.


244 posted on 09/04/2007 6:47:36 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake but Accurate, Experts Say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
How about the Fourth Amendment?

Circuit City is run by the government? Since when does the Fourth Amendment apply to private businesses? Oh, wait. It doesn't.

No, it is reason enough.

See, just because you say something doesn't make it true. The store can set whatever rules it likes for its customers. If you don't like it, don't shop there. But if you shop there, don't piss and moan about how you hate the way the store runs the show. I don't know if anyone has ever told you this before, but here's the hard truth: the world does not revolve around you.

I am also within my right to either allow them to check it, or say "no, thanks", and keep walking.

And the store can then detain you. And then if you try and leave, you have the right to be arrested. And then, if you still try and leave, you have the right to be tazed and beaten with batons. Ain't America grand?

245 posted on 09/04/2007 6:52:35 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
I thought Circuit City was private property and entry carried an implied consent to have one’s bags searched.

Perhaps to enter, but not to leave. It's also why an usher to a movie theater can check your ticket stub on the way INTO the theater; it's a condition of entry.
246 posted on 09/04/2007 6:54:22 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
Circuit City is run by the government? Since when does the Fourth Amendment apply to private businesses?

What gives the store the right to search my belongings, then? Remember, the stuff in the bag is my property. Just because I am on Circuit City property does not mean they can do whatever they want. They can certainly ask me to leave, however.

The store can set whatever rules it likes for its customers.

I stopped reading there. No, it cannot set whatever rules it wants for it's customers. Could they make a policy that they can rape you before you can leave? Of course not.

And the store can then detain you.

Before any of that other stuff can happen, they have to have a VALID reason to detain you. Refusing to show your receipt does not count. They have to meet fairly stringent guidelines to have the ability to detain someone.
247 posted on 09/04/2007 6:58:44 AM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
I>>>>f you refuse to show a receipt for your “purchase” upon leaving the store, that is going to raise an inference of shoplifting.

Not without some overt act of being seen secreting merchandise, etc., no it is not.

>>>>It’s just simply not a false arrest.

Step by step: Was he arrested by the manager? He was physically detained and told he was being detained, ergo he was arrested. Had he committed a crime, had he stolen? No. Ergo the arrest was false.

248 posted on 09/04/2007 7:01:38 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

>>>>What gives the store the right to search my belongings, then? Remember, the stuff in the bag is my property. Just because I am on Circuit City property does not mean they can do whatever they want. They can certainly ask me to leave, however.

A posted sign at the entrance. By passing that sign and entering onto CC property, you agree to those conditions.

>>>>The store can set whatever rules it likes for its customers.

Generally yes. Rape would not fall into this category, as Black Letter Law would prohibit it. (You cannot make a contract to do something illegal)

The store’s problem is that the arrest (by the store manager) was made off their property. Failure to show a receipt is not PC.


249 posted on 09/04/2007 7:08:20 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
A posted sign at the entrance. By passing that sign and entering onto CC property, you agree to those conditions.

Are the blind obligated to agree to a sign?

250 posted on 09/04/2007 7:09:10 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 551-555 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson