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 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 551-555 next last
To: MindBender26
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.

(You cannot make a contract to do something illegal)

Like an illegal search of my possessions?

The store’s problem is that the arrest (by the store manager) was made off their property.

Many times, parking lots are part of the store's property. I can't say if that's true in this particular case, however.

251 posted on 09/04/2007 7:12:09 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 249 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Stores like these have scanners with alarms at all exits, and security personnel who can watch every square inch of the store on video. Obviously they're well-equipped to deal with loss prevention. That's why I think treating every paying customer as if they're shoplifters is going too far.

I despise getting searched because I might be shoplifting, especially without any evidence. Even my public library now checks every bag at the exit, even though there's a security scanner. Last week, I was walking out with my own textbook I was studying off of, and the security guard asked if it was my book. I walked past him and said, "yep." Apparently answering his question wasn't enough, because at the bottom of the escalator, I was met by two other guards who grabbed my book to check to see if it was from the library.

252 posted on 09/04/2007 7:12:58 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

Oops, dropped a /i.


253 posted on 09/04/2007 7:13:03 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 251 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe

Incorrect, it held that he must identify himself by providing name, address and DOB. Producing an ID, photo or otherwise is not requried.


254 posted on 09/04/2007 7:13:10 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Theo
“Slippery slope” doesn’t apply here.

It's not a slippery-slope argument; I'm pointing out the fallacy that would have us believe that as long as you know what the store plans to do, it's okay.

Our awareness of store policy has no bearing on whether that policy is ethical or not.

255 posted on 09/04/2007 7:23:26 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
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?

They have positioned themselves as essentially a public place by allowing the public in without membership. I do know this brings in various aspects of the law. For example, go out on your private farm and flip your car, getting hurt. I don't believe you have to call the police for that. But you do in a public access parking lot even though it is private property. This issue has come up in malls quite often, with the right to free speech butting up against the rights of the property owner, with free speech generally winning (varies by state though).

256 posted on 09/04/2007 7:24:21 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
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?

257 posted on 09/04/2007 7:26:06 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

“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.”

lol... ‘No thank you’? What a moron.


258 posted on 09/04/2007 7:26:43 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monday
lol... ‘No thank you’? What a moron.

Yeah, what a jerk for politely and peacefully asserting his rights.
259 posted on 09/04/2007 7:33:17 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 258 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine
“You don’t know the number of times I have been enraged at having my receipt checked. I will be watching this as well.”

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?

260 posted on 09/04/2007 7:33:22 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

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 driver’s 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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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.
263 posted on 09/04/2007 7:42:46 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

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


264 posted on 09/04/2007 7:50:24 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

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
265 posted on 09/04/2007 7:50:29 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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


268 posted on 09/04/2007 7:53:59 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

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......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

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.
271 posted on 09/04/2007 8:01:33 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

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......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

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......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

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?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monday
He had no ‘right’ to refuse to show his receipt. The constitution wasn’t 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.

277 posted on 09/04/2007 8:09:08 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

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......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
(although I’m right and you’re 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.

280 posted on 09/04/2007 8:16:29 AM PDT by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf
“I do not need an enumerated or explicit right not to be searched by private parties or refuse one if requested.”

You do if you enter a store knowing that it is the policy of the store to check bags and receipts upon exit. Once you know that you cannot refuse to co operate with store policy since by entering the establishment you have agreed to abide by it.

281 posted on 09/04/2007 8:17:14 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
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. =]

My comment was based on the novel interpretation of the UCC being bandied about, which would not support the checking of purses, boxes etc if nothing was bought in that location. Its one of many reasons the UCC theory being espoused does not hold water. Merchants rights WRT to shoplifting derives from the common law concept of shopkeepers privilege, which allows a merchant to detain a potential shoplifter for a reasonable amount of time wait for the police to arrive.

Shopkeepers Privilege requires probable cause for being invoked. Any professional LPS will tell you that refusing a receipt check does not qualify as PC.
282 posted on 09/04/2007 8:18:43 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

There are a seriew of cases regarding shoplifing and what can and can not be done.

Receipt checks are about stopping shop lifters and insider assitance for shoplifters when the cashier intentionally does not ring up all items. (it would not suprise me if the store has a security video on all cahiers which also show on the image exactly what is being rung up.)

Here we have a man who is ignoring an in store on premisis security check, he then acts like a thief.

I will see what I can find a bit later.


283 posted on 09/04/2007 8:21:08 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer
My daughter is the highest paid asset protection manager for a discount chain in California, having earned her salary with results at 5 stores. When she got her job, I quizzed her about all this stuff.

This is a private business exchange and different than the cops regulations until the cops are called in.

Which part of what I said seems wrong to you?

The scariest part of this work is that the store wants you to stop the suspected shoplifter without force and without knowing if they are armed.

I used to work in a prison and I wouldn't trade jobs with her.

284 posted on 09/04/2007 8:21:18 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: monday

It’s not illegal to be an “a-hole”. Cite the Ohio law that states any citizen must produce identification when in a parking lot after legally making a purchase and no crime was committed except for being illegally detained from leaving by the proprietors of said store.

There is no law against any such thing. That’s why the cop could only file such a flimsy charge, and I wouldn’t doubt it gets thrown out by the judge.


285 posted on 09/04/2007 8:22:00 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
And redesign is your reason for saying they don't have the authority to check your bag and receipt at the door? And I will assume you don't think they can do it in the parking lot either.

Perhaps you don't know, it's not shoplifiting until they hit the exit.

286 posted on 09/04/2007 8:23:34 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: monday
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?

That is well within your rights, as you have the right to refuse to do business with anyone. What is NOT within your rights is to search my belongings without my consent, and then detain me when I refuse to allow the search.
287 posted on 09/04/2007 8:24:36 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 279 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
It’s not illegal to be an “a-hole”. “

lol... Yep. I know. I was merely pointing out that people who act like A-holes often get treated like A-holes. It’s a human nature thing, not a law thing.

288 posted on 09/04/2007 8:27:48 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
The problem is that no one knows it was a legal purchase except the guy who's engaging in the suspicious behavior.

So the store should say, go ahead with our products because we haven't had time to run the tapes back for your entire visit to the store.

All that on each customer instead of you showing your receipt at the door. Let's drive the cost of security way up so we can't afford the product, but you won't be violated leaving the store. No dice.

Give us something that protects the rights of the store to not have you steal their product and we'll take a look at it.

289 posted on 09/04/2007 8:27:58 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: monday
You do if you enter a store knowing that it is the policy of the store to check bags and receipts upon exit. Once you know that you cannot refuse to co operate with store policy since by entering the establishment you have agreed to abide by it.

Actually I can since signage does not a contract make for a number of good reasons (vision impaired, foreign language, illiterate, is the sign clearly visible at all entrances, was it visible at the time...).

The store can not legally force me to submit to a search of my person or property unless they have probable cause under shopkeepers privilege. Refusing search is not probalbe cause for a store or an LEO. The only real option they have is to declare the person refusing PNG (not allow me in there again).
290 posted on 09/04/2007 8:28:28 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll

No, I’m saying that they never have the authority to check my property, unless they have probable cause to believe I shoplifted something, and the receipt check does not count as probable cause.


291 posted on 09/04/2007 8:28:40 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 286 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

I am starting to waver on my general agreement with that given all that has been posted here. Even if there is any implied consent or if the sale contract of adherence has such a clause indicating consent, it can be overridden by law and made unenforceable. For example, good luck to the ink jet manufacturer in my state who gives you a contract with your printer, or license with the software, that prohibits you from refilling or remanufacturing the toner cartridges. The law expressly renders such terms unenforceable as a matter of public policy. It’s probably the same in yours as I believe all states go off the Uniform Commercial Code. In any case it is unenforceable of a judge or jury decides it’s unconscionable.


292 posted on 09/04/2007 8:29:16 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf

I don’t suggest trying that with the deputy if you’re stopped. You’ll probably be Tazered, or beaten senseless, or both.


293 posted on 09/04/2007 8:29:54 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 254 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
The problem is that no one knows it was a legal purchase except the guy who's engaging in the suspicious behavior.

No one knows the pants I'm wearing were a legal purchase, either. That still doesn't give you the right to search me and detain me.

Give us something that protects the rights of the store to not have you steal their product and we'll take a look at it.

How about handing the customer a tag for a TV, and they can hand that tag in at a loading dock, after they have paid for the TV? Much more effective, and much more space-effective, as well.
294 posted on 09/04/2007 8:31:30 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 289 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

” What is NOT within your rights is to search my belongings without my consent, and then detain me when I refuse to allow the search.”

So I guess you are in favor of making it easier for shop lifters to steal? Interesting. There are only two reasons I can think of that would lead you to this conclusion. I imagine you are aware of both of them so I won’t go into them.


295 posted on 09/04/2007 8:32:02 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe

If I’m walking along the sidewalk, and the deputy does that for failure to produce a photo ID, I’ll also get a nice fat check from the city for my trouble.


296 posted on 09/04/2007 8:32:39 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 293 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
They have a store policy that you show the receipt.

Are you saying they have no right to have that policy or to enforce it? Are you saying that a business or private citizen is held to the same standard as governmental agents when protecting their property rights?

I will guess that you don't own a retail business.

297 posted on 09/04/2007 8:33:44 AM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: monday

No, I’m in favor of keeping my rights. It’s not my fault the store can’t come up with a better security policy to control shoplifting, is it?


298 posted on 09/04/2007 8:34:08 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 295 | View Replies]

To: monday

# 1800 - OHIO: SHOPLIFTING LAWS

Summary Of Detention Provisions

Who is covered? A merchant, a merchant’s employee or his agent, or a police officer.

What can the merchant, his employee, or agent do? Detain a person within or without a mercantile establishment for the purpose of recovering the article he believes has been taken or in order to cause the arrest of such person.

What are the ground rules for such detention? The law provides that such detention can be made, but:

1. There must be “probable cause” for believing that items offered for sale have been unlawfully taken.
2. Such detention must be “without search.”
3. Such detention must be without using “undue restraint.”
4. Detention must be in a “reasonable manner” to cause an arrest or to recover items unlawfully taken.
5. Detention must be for a “reasonable length of time.”


299 posted on 09/04/2007 8:34:24 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: monday

http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm

Being a jerk is not a crime....you should know that, right?


300 posted on 09/04/2007 8:34:51 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 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