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 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 551-555 next last
To: Quick1
“So you’re saying that you would be fine giving up your right to not be searched without cause?”

Not at all, but showing a receipt is not being searched. It’s jerks like this guy who make a big deal out of it that will cause us to lose our rights.

351 posted on 09/04/2007 9:06:53 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
“So you’re saying that you would be fine giving up your right to not be searched without cause?”

Not at all, but showing a receipt is not being searched. It’s jerks like this guy who make a big deal out of it that will cause us to lose our rights.

352 posted on 09/04/2007 9:08:50 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer

Strange? I think not. What I do find strange,however,is why you assume i’m a guy. For the record, i’m a girl.And I don’t feel as if my liberties are threatened by such a benign request. Not at all.Furthermore,do not assume that just because I can overlook such a thing as checking my receipt as I leave a store that I don’t cherish my liberties,and I don’t keep an eye on other,more important threats to our freedoms,such as Hitlery and The Pony.


353 posted on 09/04/2007 9:09:48 AM PDT by gimme1ibertee (God rides a Harley (when his Honda VTX is in the shop!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: monday
All he had to do was show his receipt.

He didn't "have" to do any such thing. He certainly could have allowed the search, but he was also within his rights to refuse.
354 posted on 09/04/2007 9:11:09 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 345 | View Replies]

To: monday
Not at all, but showing a receipt is not being searched.

When they open the bag to check items against the receipt, that is a search.
355 posted on 09/04/2007 9:15:34 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 351 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Any policy of any store must be in compliance with state law. Any policy therefore that is not is ILLEGAL.

Or at least simply unenforceable. Actually detaining you without probable cause that you specifically stole something would be illegal, because detaining anyone without authority to do so is illegal and probable cause is the only thing that gives them that authority. A policy that says they can search you apparently would not be enforceable given that they're not allowed to search even if you are suspected of shoplifting (I'm learning a lot here). The policy wouldn't be illegal, just unenforceable, but an attempt to enforce the policy can be illegal.

356 posted on 09/04/2007 9:19:47 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
“Then you are free to allow them to search you. I’m interested in what you say when the bag search turns into a strip search, however. “Well, at least it’s not a cavity search!”

there is no common sense in your arguments. It’s people like you who give us libertarians a bad name. Yes technically the cop and the store was wrong. On the other hand morally, it was the guy who is at fault. His position puts him on the side of shop lifters. By calling a simple request to check his bags and reciept a ‘search’ he blows a simple request out of all proportion and importance.

This is nothing at all like being pulled over and randomly search by police, yet to listen to his defenders on this thread it’s worse. all the whining is preposterous.

357 posted on 09/04/2007 9:21:48 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Buy a clue already. Geesh.


358 posted on 09/04/2007 9:26:32 AM PDT by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
“So because we make a fuss about giving up a little bit of rights, Congress is going to act and take away a LOT of our rights?”

Thats the way it works. Special interests set out to solve a problem lobbying congress to pass laws. Retailers have lots of money and lobbyists and if they think shoplifting or lawsuits by idiots like this guy become annoying enough, they are not above lobbying for new laws.

This is how every law that has ever limited our freedoms has gotten passed.

359 posted on 09/04/2007 9:26:51 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
WRONG. Where you are getting this legal reasoning is beyond me, but it is very wrong.

Actually its quite correct. Its been upheld in the courts repeatedly. Signs do not a contract make.

As for stores forcing searches, that is black letter law. I also have some direct experience with this including an incident in the last 60 days. I learned the law and the limits some time ago and have kept up with it over the years. Its an interesting read. You might also want to look at some of the loss prevention sites, they say pretty much what I am, though from a merchants perspective.

Probable cause is required for involuntary searches. There are exceptions (searches associated with an arrest, Terry search for officer safety). Refusing to consent to a search requested by an LEO is not probable cause and the same goes for merchants. The law in Ohio do not allow searches (read earlier in the thread) under its version of shopkeepers priviledge.

The only option for a store if a person refuses a search and there is no other probable cause to detain them, is to declare them PNG. That is well within their rights, and its a chance you take when you refuse to allow them to search.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/ may be instructive for you

360 posted on 09/04/2007 9:27:47 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

He should be arrested and booked for being an a-hole. OMG, they want to check the receipt to see if anything is stolen! Nazis! Don’t go into the store if you don’t want them to guard against shoplifting, which ends up costing all of us more money. What a joke.


361 posted on 09/04/2007 9:30:35 AM PDT by go-dubya-04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Exactly.


362 posted on 09/04/2007 9:32:15 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
“He didn’t “have” to do any such thing. He certainly could have allowed the search, but he was also within his rights to refuse.

lol.... You are not listening to what I am saying. I know he didn’t ‘”have” to do any such thing’ legally. I was saying he “had” to do it in order to avoid a big hassle and in order to not be one of the biggest jack@sses in history.

363 posted on 09/04/2007 9:33:28 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

Comment #364 Removed by Moderator

To: monday

No, what the manager “had” to do was to restrain himself, and if he suspected that the person was shoplifting (which he even admitted that he didn’t), then he should have written down the license plate, and called police (which he also didn’t).


365 posted on 09/04/2007 9:35:30 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 363 | View Replies]

To: monday
All he had to do was show his receipt. No words necessary, and everyone would have been saved lots of bother.

All Rosa Parks had to do was move to the back of the bus. No words necessary, and everyone would have been saved lots of bother.

366 posted on 09/04/2007 9:40:03 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

Comment #367 Removed by Moderator

To: antiRepublicrat
All Rosa Parks had to do was move to the back of the bus. No words necessary, and everyone would have been saved lots of bother.

OUCH! (but well said)

368 posted on 09/04/2007 9:41:11 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
All Rosa Parks had to do was move to the back of the bus. No words necessary, and everyone would have been saved lots of bother.

bttt!

369 posted on 09/04/2007 9:42:51 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

The comparison to Rosa Parks is a bit much, but if it gets the point across...


370 posted on 09/04/2007 9:42:57 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 366 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

“No, what the manager “had” to do was to restrain himself...”

You are still talking legally, while I have explained repeatedly that my primary concern is moral and practical. a little slow? Whatever. Have fun being outraged.


371 posted on 09/04/2007 9:43:08 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Quick1; antiRepublicrat

Evidently, it’s become necessary to be “over the top” to get the point across. It doesn’t otherwise seem to be sinking in. I’m sure those very words were said at the time, as well.


372 posted on 09/04/2007 9:44:38 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
i only had to read the excerpt. and i know i am writing what many others have written, but i want to go on record:

this guy is a total J/O.

when you enter a store, you are agreeing with their posted policies. you don't want your bag searched, ORDER ONLINE OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

someone show me where in the bill of rights it says we have a right not to be searched on private property when it is posted that we are consenting to a search just by walking in!

this guy deserves to get screwed.

373 posted on 09/04/2007 9:47:59 AM PDT by thefactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

It’s amazing how all the codes tend to dovetail into one another and some conflict with one another. Many such codes have been given authority by local ordinances.

There are a litany of issues and interests at play in this type of situation. Just because some codes are not applicable in private, doesn’t mean statutory law is inapplicable.


374 posted on 09/04/2007 9:48:02 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: monday

Here’s a couple of moral questions: Do you think the manager feels guilty for unlawfully detaining someone that didn’t turn out to be a shoplifter, especially when he had no suspicion of that fact in the first place? Do you think he feels guilty that he cost his company a nice check that will be paid out to the author of this article?

Do you think the cop feels guilty that he arrested someone who fully cooperated with him, provided identity and proof he stole nothing, and in fact was the person that called him?

Practical questions:
How long do you think it will take for the manager to find another job, now that he’s most likely been fired?


375 posted on 09/04/2007 9:48:35 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 371 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; Starwolf; nicmarlo
“All Rosa Parks had to do was move to the back of the bus. No words necessary, and everyone would have been saved lots of bother.”

lol.... Are you seriously comparing racial discrimination to asking to see a receipt at store exits? Exactly who is being discriminated against when everyone is asked equally? sheesh..... Next you guys will be comparng yourselves to Christ on the cross. lol,,, yes you are terribly put upon.

376 posted on 09/04/2007 9:49:48 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
when you enter a store, you are agreeing with their posted policies.

No, you aren't. This has been stated in the thread many times.
377 posted on 09/04/2007 9:49:55 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 373 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

so the signs that basically say “by entering the store you are agreeing to be searched” mean what exactly? sorry i couldn’t read 350 posts...


378 posted on 09/04/2007 9:52:44 AM PDT by thefactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

I think that thanks to the jerk who wrote this article that a lot of people feel bad right now. he ruined a lot of otherwise nice peoples days by being a such a jerk. He is your hero?


379 posted on 09/04/2007 9:54:04 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
so the signs that basically say “by entering the store you are agreeing to be searched” mean what exactly?

It means that the store needs to get themselves a lawyer, because they have opened themselves up to some serious liability. Anyway, I've never seen such a sign at any store I've gone into, even the ones that check receipts.
380 posted on 09/04/2007 9:54:27 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 378 | View Replies]

To: monday; antiRepublicrat; Starwolf
when everyone is asked equally?

Exactly the problem...where's the "probable cause" to detain or arrest, as required by Ohio law????

381 posted on 09/04/2007 9:54:49 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: monday
I think that thanks to the jerk who wrote this article that a lot of people feel bad right now. he ruined a lot of otherwise nice peoples days by being a such a jerk.

How exactly was he a jerk? Just because you say so?
382 posted on 09/04/2007 9:56:00 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 379 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

his refusal to show his reciept. By doing so he singled himself out for “special” treatment.


383 posted on 09/04/2007 9:56:47 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

no, because anyone with common sense can see he is a jerk.


384 posted on 09/04/2007 9:57:53 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: monday

There was no probably cause to produce anything to the store. Stores cannot detain customers without probable cause according to Ohio law.

The guy did not steal. The store admits they did not observe him to steal.

I’m beginning to wonder if you work for this company.


385 posted on 09/04/2007 9:58:20 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: monday
By doing so he singled himself out for “special” treatment.

His "special" treatment should have been his freedom to leave, instead of having to wait in line to leave like all the people that did not understand their rights. Everything that escalated after the author said "No, thanks" to the search was the fault of the MANAGER.
386 posted on 09/04/2007 9:59:17 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 383 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf

>>>>Actually its quite correct. Its been upheld in the courts repeatedly. Signs do not a contract make.

I do not know where you are getting this foolishness,

Do you not think that a sign that says “All sales are final” makes any sale final and non-refundable (absent fraud on the part of the seller)

What about a sign that says “No smoking” or “Any sealed packaged opened by a customer constitutes a sale” or “no return without a receipt” would you not expect to be binding.

Actually, signs are “great” contract. They are a clear indication on the part of the store that they took steps to explain their contractual terms to the customers.

Please, stop the bad legal advice.


387 posted on 09/04/2007 10:00:43 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf

Good post, thanks.


388 posted on 09/04/2007 10:03:19 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: monday
You are still talking legally, while I have explained repeatedly that my primary concern is moral and practical. a little slow? Whatever. Have fun being outraged.

The first time you or one of your family runs into a store security bubba that has delusions of being a Jack Bauer or Rambo, you will change you attitude. Its sort of like how a liberal converts to being a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment after they get mugged. When some fool is waving pepper spray in your face for something you have not done, it tends to make one hostile, which I am to idiots on general principle anyways.

I tend to be hardcore about standing up for my rights and the rights of others, but I am pragmatic. I show the exit checker my bag when I leave the Wal Mart in my home town. I know most of the checkers personally, and you behave civilly in small towns, where everyone is your neighbor.

My issue is with the wannabes who exceed any reasonable standard of behavior. Those are the idiots I go after. Most backdown and slink away, a few dumb ones have gotten chesty and paid dearly for it. I have no problem ruining their day and then some.

Had an incident recently where a security goon came after me before I had even parked. In the end it was a case of mistaken identity. However before that was made clear, the idiot was down and disarmed. The store asked me not to sue, and I agreed to a mutual hold harmless provided they fired the bubba. I assume they did, I was just passing thru so I have not verified that.

I have no problem with LP bubbas who follow the law since I am always clean. I cooperate with things like bag searches, since its a pragmatic thing to do in most cases. I do have a problem when they step out of line, esp if they attempt to get physical. I am more than glad to forcibly point out the error of their ways, since it serves as a significant deterrent to others. I do not push for financial settlements provided the store admits fault and fires the bubbas, again because its pragmatic. I have never been PNG’d or sued over it.

389 posted on 09/04/2007 10:04:45 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: monday
All he had to do was show his receipt. No words necessary, and everyone would have been saved lots of bother. Do you believe shoplifters should be allowed to say “no thanks” and shoplift with impunity?

Under the Ohio statutes, the store can only do so much.

Whether any of these actions/reactions hold any sway depends on how they are defined legally. For instance, does the item you just bought become your private property once payment is completed?

Here it is again, in case you missed post #160:

(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.

And...

(E) The officer, agent, or employee of the library, museum, or archival institution, the merchant or employee or agent of a merchant, or the owner, lessee, employee, or agent of the facility acting under division (A) , (B), or (D) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person’s consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained.

That's the present law. So what's left to determine here is whether the guy was in the right by refusing to show his receipt, or whether a business can create its own set of rules contrary to state law. (Or maybe the business has been granted an exemption somewhere. Who knows.)

But if a store is going to say that they have the right to search everyone's bags or examine everyone's receipts on the way out, that means that they have by default placed everyone who enters the premises under suspicion. Is that legal?

And maybe it seems like such a small thing, but I think it shows you how ignorant people are of what the laws are - or maybe that there are so damn many of them that it's become almost impossible for the average person to keep track.

390 posted on 09/04/2007 10:05:05 AM PDT by dbwz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
GOL DANG IT!!! MY DADDY FOUGHT THE GOLDANG RED JAPANESE SO I WOULDN’T HAVE TO SHOW MY BAG WHEN I LEAVE THE STORE!! THIS IS LIKE SOVIET GERMANY ALL OVER AGAIN!!

I read that post with a Hank Hill accent - perfect!

Tell ya what, dang ol' clerk rootin through muh bags heh heh dang ol' strip searched an heh heh dang ol' police show heh heh...shoot.

A little Boomhauer to add to the mix.

391 posted on 09/04/2007 10:10:20 AM PDT by ko_kyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf

“I cooperate with things like bag searches, since its a pragmatic thing to do in most cases.”

and yet you are defending this guy even though it looks to be certain his only motivation was to sue the store and make some easy money. I see.


392 posted on 09/04/2007 10:11:22 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

How would you explain the fact that he was arrested on a false charge only to have it replaced with another false charge?


393 posted on 09/04/2007 10:17:00 AM PDT by semaj (Just shoot the bastards! * Your results may vary. Void where prohibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dbwz
“And maybe it seems like such a small thing, but I think it shows you how ignorant people are of what the laws are ...”

...or maybe most people understand that shoplifting is a problem that costs us all in higher prices and are nice enough to oblige when a store asks to see a receipt and check their bags upon exit.

394 posted on 09/04/2007 10:19:00 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: monday

Yeah, but where does that argument begin and end?

One could easily argue that any design professional laying out the floor plan for a Circuit City should know to place the cash registers closer to the exit, thereby allowing customers to exit with their purchases unimpeded and unharassed.

Just because I enter somebody else private property doesn’t mean I consent to their search, interrogation and seizure of my property, person, and time, no matter who says it.


395 posted on 09/04/2007 10:19:48 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
I do not know where you are getting this foolishness,

Do you not think that a sign that says “All sales are final” makes any sale final and non-refundable (absent fraud on the part of the seller)

What about a sign that says “No smoking” or “Any sealed packaged opened by a customer constitutes a sale” or “no return without a receipt” would you not expect to be binding.

Actually, signs are “great” contract. They are a clear indication on the part of the store that they took steps to explain their contractual terms to the customers.

Signage is not a legally enforceable contract since there are too many cases where consent is not possible, some of which I enumerated earlier. Many precedents on this, but I don't have access to WestLaw today. To address your particulars...

- Stores are not required to offer refunds by law except in sometimes in the case of latent defects or as directed by law (3 day cooling off periods in some states). Otherwise return privileges are at the discretion of the seller and Caveat Emptor applies.

- Opening a package as a forced sale is not enforceable in real time, neither is 'you break it you pay for it'. Try calling a cop to enforce it and see what happens. It may be enforceable in small claims court

The only recourse a merchant has when a person refuses to abide with their policies is to declare them PNG.

I suggest you take a class on merchant laws as they apply in your state. It will be an eye opener.

396 posted on 09/04/2007 10:21:12 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
“Just because I enter somebody else private property doesn’t mean I consent to their search, interrogation and seizure of my property, person, and time, no matter who says it.”

If showing your receipts bothers you, you have a responsibility to not shop in stores that require you to do so. doing so, like this guy did, shows that his primary motivation was in creating an incident and in suing the store, not in any aversion to showing receipts.

397 posted on 09/04/2007 10:26:18 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: monday
lol.... Are you seriously comparing racial discrimination to asking to see a receipt at store exits? Exactly who is being discriminated against when everyone is asked equally?

Yes, his liberal nonsense is quite hilarious, I get quite a few laughs watching the excuses he makes up for Russians who steal intellectual property from US corporations all the time on the tech threads. He's on record admitting he's made up lies in their defense, his latest thing is insisting we don't need security background checks on NASA workers, being too intrusive, of course.

Next you guys will be comparing yourselves to Christ on the cross. lol,,, yes you are terribly put upon.

Probably right, AntiRepublican is a militant atheist but I can hear him now, saying we should forgive all theives as Jesus did, since he's willing to as well LOL.

398 posted on 09/04/2007 10:33:49 AM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: monday
and yet you are defending this guy even though it looks to be certain his only motivation was to sue the store and make some easy money. I see.

I don't see where he was trolling for easy money based on what has been presented, but more information could change that (has he done this before...). Add to that he is out of state and the costs of pursuing a lawsuit with some chance of loss being what they are, I don't see this as a money move, but one of persnickitiness. I know when I tell such bozos to pound sand and make it stick, its not because I want money, its because they have crossed my threshold of what I consider tolerable, which takes some doing.

Just because I may not have made the same decision does not mean I think he must do what I would have done, if he is within his rights to refuse. Its really a case of sovereign election, i.e.: his life, his call.

399 posted on 09/04/2007 10:34:41 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: monday

Interesting that you believe all merchants should treat their customers as shop lifters.


400 posted on 09/04/2007 10:34:53 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 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