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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 541-555 next last
To: monday
Quit shopping at stores that check your receipt if it bothers you so much. I suppose you would rather pay higher prices to make up for the merchandise that shop lifters steal?
Here's a newsflash: the receipt checking accomplishes nothing but inconvenience for the customer, and most theft is done by employees of a store.
Also, it's not like stores are advertising the fact that they check receipts, so how can you know to avoid them until you get to the point where they ask you for it?
261
posted on
09/04/2007 7:38:52 AM PDT
by
Quick1
(There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
To: nicmarlo
” But I dislike arrests because some, who is not driving a car, after calling the police himself, is arrested for not producing a drivers license, especially when he was not driving a vehicle.” lol, he was arrested for being an A-hole, not for not producing a drivers license. If he had just shown his receipt he wouldn’t have been arrested at all.
262
posted on
09/04/2007 7:42:22 AM PDT
by
monday
To: Publius Valerius
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?
What you say is clearly incorrect since it is well in excess of "shopkeepers privileged". In the states that allow it, merchants are allowed only to detain you for a reasonable period for the police to arrive. Nothing more. They can not restrain, search, or restrict you beyond that. For example, a cop can tell you not to use your cell phone, a merchant invoking merchants privilege can not.
If they are extremely stupid they can perform a citizens arrest which has to be done perfectly to be binding and even then opens them to a massive amount of liability for flase arrest.
What the CC bubbas did was none of the above, it was illegal restraint, which can be a serious issue.
There is some gray areas in terms of what you can do to rebuff their illegal activities. Refusing to go inside the store, protesting in a loud voice, refusing to allow them to look in your bags or search your person are all fine. The issue becomes when they become physical and threaten you (assault) or lay hands on you (battery). I have always resisted successfully, but that is an individuals choice.
To: Publius Valerius
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.
Incorrect on all points
- The detention was illegal for several reasons, not the least of it was that people that did not enter the store were also detained.
- Store did not have probable or reasonable cause. Refusal to open a package or show a receipt, BY ITSELF, is not cause to invoke shopkeepers privledge. Any miminally trained LP bubba would know that
- It was his right to leave under the circumstances described
- CC people should be charged criminally, they are going to pay in civil court
To: Publius Valerius
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.
Incorrect on all points
- The detention was illegal for several reasons, not the least of it was that people that did not enter the store were also detained.
- Store did not have probable or reasonable cause. Refusal to open a package or show a receipt, BY ITSELF, is not cause to invoke shopkeepers privledge. Any miminally trained LP bubba would know that
- It was his right to leave under the circumstances described
- CC people should be charged criminally, they are going to pay in civil court
To: monday
lol, he was arrested for being an A-hole, not for not producing a drivers license.
I wasn't aware that that was an arrestable offense. He also showed his receipt to the cop, and was still arrested.
266
posted on
09/04/2007 7:51:34 AM PDT
by
Quick1
(There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
To: goldstategop
“But they no jurisdiction to do so the moment he left the store.” So if a shop lifter can run fast enough to get out the front door he can just stand there and make faces at store employees taunting them? lol
“Accusing a paying customer of shoplifting is just lousy customer service ...”
I agree. People who are outraged at being asked to show a receipt to prove you aren’t a shop lifter should not shop at stores that post bag checkers at their doors. If you see bag checkers and still shop there though, you have only yourself to blame for your outrage.
267
posted on
09/04/2007 7:52:14 AM PDT
by
monday
To: Cvengr
The problem with his contract theory is it breaksdown if I do not buy something (enter into a contract). It is novel and innovative...maybe its in the penumbra of the UCC
To: Quick1
There is WAY to much incorrect legal advice going on here.
>>>>A posted sign at the entrance. By passing that sign and entering onto CC property, you agree to those conditions.
>>Pretty sure that’s false, and anyway, I’ve never seen a sign at any of the places that have asked to see my receipt.
No it is not false.
>>>>(You cannot make a contract to do something illegal)
>>Like an illegal search of my possessions?
To be illegal, it must violate a LAW. That is not the case here.
269
posted on
09/04/2007 7:54:38 AM PDT
by
MindBender26
(Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
To: Quick1
“Yeah, what a jerk for politely and peacefully asserting his rights.” You have no ‘right’ to shop lift no matter how polite you are, and no ‘right’ to shop anywhere unless you agree to observe the rules of that particular business. He had no ‘right’ to refuse to show his receipt. The constitution wasn’t set up to protect shop lifters.
if he would have just shown his receipt no one would have bothered him any more. this whole incident just proves that when you act like an A-hole you are treated like an A-hole.
270
posted on
09/04/2007 8:01:11 AM PDT
by
monday
To: monday
lol... No thank you? What a moron.
I use "request denied". It really messes with their heads, espically if the LPS is an LEO wannabe. You can see the process going on in their slow little minds... I am in charge, I am in control of the situation, some punk just brushed me aside like I am nothing...its time to KILL!!!!
Wouldn't be so bad if I hadn't been through that again recently. Fortunately a competent lead LPS showed up and saved the idiot from a well deserved thrashing and the store from litigation.
To: Oberon
>>>A posted sign at the entrance. By passing that sign and entering onto CC property, you agree to those conditions.
>>Regardless of what the conditions are? You’re saying anything goes, as long as it’s on the sign?
Please see my comments earlier re Black Letter Law
Conditions that some might consider onerous can easily be made contractual conditions of entry:
“Any item broken during handling must be paid for by customers.”
“Do not open sealed boxes. If you open a sealed box, it is considered a sale.”
“All packages, purses and briefcases subject to search”
“No children under 12 admitted”
“One drink per show minimum”
“$10.00 cover charge”
“All sales final - No returns - No exchanges”
“3% surcharge on all credit card sales” (Is legal but may violate Interbank rules)
“$25 charge for all dishonored checks”
All are easily enforceable if they were posted and easily seen by entrants upon entering store.
272
posted on
09/04/2007 8:02:27 AM PDT
by
MindBender26
(Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
To: ShadowAce
Did a reasonable blind person know that there might be signs regulating and conditioning his/her entry to the store and did she/he enquire about such signs or conditions?
273
posted on
09/04/2007 8:04:20 AM PDT
by
MindBender26
(Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
To: Quick1
“Here’s a newsflash: the receipt checking accomplishes nothing but inconvenience for the customer, and most theft is done by employees of a store.” How do you know? Do you work at that store?
“Also, it’s not like stores are advertising the fact that they check receipts, so how can you know to avoid them until you get to the point where they ask you for it?”
Look at the exit when you walk in. If there is someone standing there checking receipts and bags of exiting customers, turn around and walk out. Thats what shop lifters do when deciding which stores to steal from.
274
posted on
09/04/2007 8:05:49 AM PDT
by
monday
To: Starwolf
The problem with his contract theory is it breaksdown if I do not buy something (enter into a contract). Under that line of reasoning, you can readily refuse receipt verification provided the bag you're walking out with was actually stolen from someone else. =]
275
posted on
09/04/2007 8:06:44 AM PDT
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: antiRepublicrat
Um this is standard with electronic retailers. They catch a lot of potential shoplifters this way. I used to work part time at one and one guy tried to walk out the door with a 32 inch plasma tv with nothing but a service agreement receipt for another product. The employee asked to see the receipt so the potential lifter put down the tv handed him the paper and then bolted. the tv was going for 1,500 at the time.
276
posted on
09/04/2007 8:07:13 AM PDT
by
DM1
To: monday
He had no right to refuse to show his receipt. The constitution wasnt set up to protect shop lifters.
I do not need an enumerated or explicit right not to be searched by private parties or refuse one if requested. He was well within his rights to refuse to show his receipt or resist being detained since it did not properly fall under shopkeepers privilege. The store would then be well within his rights to tell him to never come back.
To: Oberon; Starwolf
>>>>The problem with his contract theory is it breaksdown if I do not buy something (enter into a contract).
The contract did not involve the sale. The contract in questioned involved the potential purchaser’s conditioned prividge of entering into private property.
(Thank you, Your Honor!)
278
posted on
09/04/2007 8:09:26 AM PDT
by
MindBender26
(Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
To: Starwolf
“I use “request denied”. It really messes with their heads, espically if the LPS is an LEO wannabe. “ So I guess you won’t mind if they call police and file a no trespassing order on you to prevent you from shopping there in the future? If you enter a business, you must agree to their terms. By refusing to co operate you make yourself unwelcome for further transactions.
279
posted on
09/04/2007 8:12:47 AM PDT
by
monday
To: Cvengr
(although Im right and youre wrong ;^).... I don't think so. I have deliberately stayed away from some of the more nuanced points of law, only mentioning that they exist with tens of thousands of cases decided on each element of a contract. I have completely ignored the detainment aspect as it is separate. The store retains the right to set terms and conditions.
To fully implement the policy and be safe there should be clear and unambiguous design and policy notification. I would think a desk at the exit for immediate refunds would be advisable. The exiting customer refusing a bag check should be met with "Sir, we refuse to sell, you have not complied with our policy, here is your money back" and not an immediate arrest.
As a merchant is loathe to do so, they forfeit rights that they need not have forfeited. As you point out, their practices will affect any outcome.
Mass merchandising and the contentious legal environment have changed the retail environment. I have repeatedly pointed out here that Home Depot, with one million dollars in shrinkage per store is wise to not let employees stop shoplifters even though the law clearly gives them the right. It is far easier to reduce theft by concentrating on employees where you do not go directly into the legal system. It is simple cost/benefit. If the public cannot clearly decide moral issues it is easier to build in 2% at the register and say "a pox on you all". I am pointing out that when push comes to shove, people may not have "rights" that they presume to have.
For the sake of public perception and to avoid legal costs large retailers are not pushing back against assholes like the one in the article. The law will probably follow but it is not there yet.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 541-555 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson