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 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 551-555 next last
To: ThisLittleLightofMine; antiRepublicrat
"I have been enraged at having my receipt checked."

I don't understand why the reluctance to show your receipt.

Stores do that to prevent shoplifting.

401 posted on 09/04/2007 10:39:41 AM PDT by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: monday
Are you seriously comparing racial discrimination to asking to see a receipt at store exits?

Was thinking about putting a disclaimer somewhat like the following on that post, but I thought people would be sensible and get the point, not go off on a tangent:

"Not to equate the two in degree, but the principle remains the same, that failing to standing up for your rights is more convenient, but not necessarily the right thing to do."

402 posted on 09/04/2007 10:42:13 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
where's the "probable cause" to detain or arrest, as required by Ohio law

Non-existent.

403 posted on 09/04/2007 10:42:59 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
“Interesting that you believe all merchants should treat their customers as shop lifters.”

Nope. Only stores that have a significant problem in that regard. Most merchants don’t check receipts at the door. Those that do have to weigh their desire to limit shoplifting with the aggravation that checks cause their customers. Those who can’t will go out of business.

404 posted on 09/04/2007 10:44:36 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: monday

You may want to study the UCC a little bit.

The merchant has more responsibility than the consumer in such transactions.

BTW, technically the merchant doesn’t have to provide a receipt. The cash tendered in return for the object purchased results in the condition of materiality being satisfied.

The receipt checker is employed by the merchant, not the consumer. Consumer has not entered into an agreement with the merchant or the receipt checker to accept such a search.

Likewise, merely posting a sign in public view doesn’t prove the consumer is cognizant of such a stipulative term in entering the premises, so a sign near the entrance with lots of fine print doesn’t give the merchant carte blanche in searching the public.

I agree with you though, that it would be foolish for anybody to conduct business with merchants who lack these basic management and marketing skills.


405 posted on 09/04/2007 10:45:32 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
i only had to read the excerpt.

Too bad. You missed the juicy part about him calling the cops on the employees due to them detaining him, and then him being arrested for failure to show a driver's license despite a state law that says he doesn't have to show it.

The bag check thing is debatable, as has been shown here. But to the point of the thread title, his rights were violated when he was arrested for failure to show "papers."

406 posted on 09/04/2007 10:47:41 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
You cannot leave Fry’s without a bag check either.

You cannot get out of a Costco or Sam's Club without being stopped at the door, show the receipt, and wait while the clerk checks what you just paid for 100 feet from the door. Your also checked out at Best Buy trying to get out the door also.

407 posted on 09/04/2007 10:48:05 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (The American Republic is slowing dying, and no one cares.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

At Costco and Sam’s, you sign a membership agreement which I believe allows them to perform the search. At Best Buy, you can just walk on by the receipt checker, as you have entered no such agreement.


408 posted on 09/04/2007 10:51:10 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 407 | View Replies]

To: monday

There are others in business who learn some basics about how to conduct a transaction, establish the sales floor, interact with clientèle, and conduct business without alienating good customers, while not ignoring theft and penalizing criminals.

There are enough electronic devices available at low cost today, to well document and track those who shoplift, while affording the merchant plenty of opportunity to not become legalistic or hostile.


409 posted on 09/04/2007 10:53:19 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Designer
I don't understand why the reluctance to show your receipt.

Stores do that to prevent shoplifting.

There is nothing out there that shows it is particularly effective in loss prevention. Note that most theft is done by employees.

While I am not the poster you posed your question to, for me its a trade off of my rights against letting things go smoothly. The bag check is technically voluntary, and can not be enforced by the merchant. However most of us go along with it for pragmatic reasons. Also if I refuse, the merchant could declare me PNG, which would be an inconvenience. However, I can still refuse legally.

410 posted on 09/04/2007 10:54:43 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
“that failing to standing up for your rights is more convenient, but not necessarily the right thing to do.”

In this case, not standing up for your rights might not only be more convenient but also the right thing to do. There are no constitutional protections that prohibit congress from giving merchants the right to search their customers while on their premises.

If retailers feel that shoplifting or lawsuits brought by guys like the author of this article become too much of a problem, they are not above lobbying congress for such laws to be passed.

411 posted on 09/04/2007 10:55:32 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf

“...his life, his call.”

I guess that’s how I feel about it. There are just so many things in everyday life - petty injustices, annoying and inept beauracracies, minor and even major infringements on our rights - I could not stop and battle each one and stay healthy. You gotta pick your fights, and this one is not for me.


412 posted on 09/04/2007 11:00:17 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: monday

Allow me to translate that post:

“BE AFRAID!”


413 posted on 09/04/2007 11:02:56 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 411 | View Replies]

To: Designer
I don't understand why the reluctance to show your receipt.

I show it because to be honest I'm lazy and can't be bothered with a possible altercation. But this thread is starting to make me think about that policy.

414 posted on 09/04/2007 11:02:59 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

anyone with a brain should be very afraid of congress. Their only purpose in life is to take away our rights and freedom.


415 posted on 09/04/2007 11:05:30 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"But this thread is starting to make me think about that policy."

Additionally, some stores, such as COSCO, always ask to see your receipt.

In their case, I think it is a marketing ploy.

416 posted on 09/04/2007 11:08:45 AM PDT by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Designer

With Sams, Costco etc, you agree to the check in your membership agreement. Read it sometime


417 posted on 09/04/2007 11:12:27 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

I think the story is bogus. But as far as I know...there isn’t a law in the entire US that says you must have an ID on you....unless you are a military member. If challenged as a military member...you have to present your ID.

In this case...Circuit City might find itself a bit overwhelmed with negative coverage. I might pay this character off and avoid further news on the whole thing.


418 posted on 09/04/2007 11:14:03 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

Still, they have you locked away from anything when you go through the register area. What is left for you to grab? The area is fenced off, so you cannot go back to the floor except through the register area or back through the front. What do they think you did, pick up a 50 inch TV?


419 posted on 09/04/2007 11:18:45 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (The American Republic is slowing dying, and no one cares.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

The lesson here is that it doesn’t pay to be a dick. Period.


420 posted on 09/04/2007 11:20:28 AM PDT by Melas (Offending stupid people since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
The lesson here is that it doesn’t pay to be a dick. Period.

I await the outcome of his probable suit against CC for unlawful detainment and against the police department for false arrest. It might end up paying quite handsomely.

421 posted on 09/04/2007 11:24:46 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
I think the story is bogus. But as far as I know...there isn’t a law in the entire US that says you must have an ID on you....unless you are a military member. If challenged as a military member...you have to present your ID.

There are ID laws in many states which have been found to be legal. You must identify yourself (name, address, DOB) but you do not have to provide a photo ID. Check out http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions#07 for some gouge on when you have to provide ID. Note that it does not say to a merchant who wants to search your bags or detain you.

In this case...Circuit City might find itself a bit overwhelmed with negative coverage. I might pay this character off and avoid further news on the whole thing.

This guy acted enough like a bozo with the cops (even though they should not have arrested him) that there will be very little fallout IMO. However, CC may have others trying it now. That could end up being amusing, depending on how ones sense of humor.

422 posted on 09/04/2007 11:26:30 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

AR,

Were I on the jury I would not award him too much money even *if* everything turns out as true. Just enough to cover the legal expenses for the suit itself.

The guy is in this position because pretty much everyone involved was a jerk (including himself)


423 posted on 09/04/2007 11:30:01 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I await the outcome of his probable suit against CC for unlawful detainment and against the police department for false arrest. It might end up paying quite handsomely.

I hope this gets cleared up without suits. The arrest should be expunged, the cop warned not to be than dumb/macho but nothing on his permanent record.

The CC bubbas fired for cause and CC needs to educate their staff as to what they can or cannot do to customers. CC shuold pay any of the vics out of pocket costs, but that should be about it.

424 posted on 09/04/2007 11:34:50 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf
The arrest should be expunged, the cop warned not to be than dumb/macho but nothing on his permanent record.

At the very least I'd want it on his record and force the police department to educate its officers about the law. The reason is that the implications go far beyond this case.

425 posted on 09/04/2007 11:53:06 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

READ THE LAST LINE TO SEE WHY THIS STORY IS OUT!!!

New Ohio Law Allows Cops to Request ID
Wednesday, January 11, 2006

E-MAIL STORY RESPOND TO EDITOR PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
Ohio Republican Gov. Bob Taft on Wednesday signed a bill into law passed by the state legislature with barely a word of dissent. Supporters of the state’s security measure, which takes effect in 90 days, say it’s a tool the state can use in fighting terrorism.

“Like everyone else, after Sept. 11, I became a lot more concerned about our safety and security,” said state Sen. Jeff Jacobson, sponsor of the bill, which also instructs local law enforcement to lend assistance when able to federal authorities carrying out provisions of the Patriot Act.

“We felt very strongly that we needed to have laws in Ohio to out our state on the frontline of fighting terrorism,” Jacobson said.

But dissent is building over authority given to police officers, who can now ask, “What’s your name?” as a tool to fight terrorism. Failure to identify oneself could land an individual in jail.

Critics call the measure the Ohio Patriot Act. The law also requires those applying for state driver’s licenses to sign a form that they haven’t supported terrorist organizations.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the measure because of the new powers it gives to police.

(Story continues below)


426 posted on 09/04/2007 12:26:18 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

LINK TO ABOVE (sorry)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181382,00.html


427 posted on 09/04/2007 12:28:21 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

What relevance is this? The guy identified himself.


428 posted on 09/04/2007 12:29:05 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I would tend to look at his record and reputatoin. If its clean, the lesson will have been learned by his dept and others. If its not, then more punative action is called for


429 posted on 09/04/2007 12:29:19 PM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

IMHO this story is exactly the planted story the ACLU waants to get out. Based on the number of posts and the disagrement in them, I say we have been complicet (sp).


430 posted on 09/04/2007 12:31:38 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

http://www.acluohio.org/issues/REALID/


431 posted on 09/04/2007 12:35:32 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

http://www.acluohio.org/pressreleases/2007pr/2007.06.21.asp


432 posted on 09/04/2007 12:37:05 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Designer
Actually the receipt check thing only assures that employee ringing customers up engaging in the practice of scanning a cheaper item and then allowing the customer to walk with the merchandise, it is more about keeping their employees honest not the customer. Thieves usually like small expensive easy to pocket merchandise like games, videos, SD picture cards etc. I do not appreciate being treated as a criminal, after I have just spent money in their store. So I no longer shop at places that engage in this practice.
433 posted on 09/04/2007 12:37:34 PM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink
IMHO this story is exactly the planted story the ACLU waants to get out. Based on the number of posts and the disagrement in them, I say we have been complicit (sp).

Just like the planets, the interests of conservatives and the ACLU do sometimes align. It happens rarely, but it happens.

434 posted on 09/04/2007 12:40:40 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

This may very well be the “test case” the ACLU plans to use get these issues into the court system. Let’s just watch and see.


435 posted on 09/04/2007 12:41:22 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Agreed.


436 posted on 09/04/2007 12:43:00 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: teledude

“Call it another example of our declining society...”

Exactly. I still grumble about Richard “the shoe bomber” Reid whenever I have to take my shoes off at the airport.

He ruined it for the rest of us.


437 posted on 09/04/2007 12:43:05 PM PDT by Reddy (VOTE CONSERVATIVE in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; Quick1; All
Here's my point: this guy got into a dispute with a store employee based on a store policy he did not agree with. He is free to disagree with this policy.

However, he put the security guard in a position where the guard had to do his job, and then he did not allow the guard to do his job. If you want to disagree with a policy, go talk to the manager BEFORE you buy something and walk out! Write a letter to the store!

THEN, while he is embroiled in this dispute he calls the cops. And when the cop arrives, HE DOESN"T COOPERATE WITH THE COP HE CHOSE TO CALL! Was the cop simply supposed to tell the security guard to back off and let this guy go on his merry way?

The cop's suspicion is already raised because the guy won't let the guard do his job. Then when the cop gets there, the shopper won't comply with a simple identification confirmation tool. Give the cop something and he'll be more apt to help you out with your problem.

What did he expect the cop to do? Take his word for it? "OK sir, you won't allow the security guard to do his job and then you called me but won't even verify your ID so I can talk to you about the situation, but I'm going to just let you go..."

This isn't about an ambiguous law on the books that is open to interpretation. This is about real-world problem solving and just being a normal human being. If you call the cops, cooperate with them. If not, then don't call and be prepared to get into a fist fight with the security guard. In effect, be a man.

438 posted on 09/04/2007 1:15:24 PM PDT by thefactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf
Again, I’m sorry, but unless your state is very different from most, especially California where my law license is from, you are very wrong.

In a small way you are correct. Signs cannot serve as a total disclaimation of all rights. For example, signs that say “Ride at your own risk” at a go cart track are virtually meaningless.

In addition, they are totally meaningless regarding the rights of minors, because, in reality, not even a parent can completely sign away a minor’s rights without due compensation to the minor.

I think I know where your mistakes are coming from however.

You are confusing criminal law with civil law

Signs rarely serve as necessary notice under criminal law except where the law provides for certain specific posting requirements, such as the statutory requirements for the size and location of No Trespassing signs or the required construction site signs in Florida that announce that theft from a construction site is a Felony, regardless of the value of the proceeds of the theft.

A sign that says “If you open a sealed box, you have bought it” does not subject such a box opener to criminal prosecution for failure to pay unless the box opener removes the item from the store. Recklessly opening a group of sealed boxes with no real expectation of making payment could be criminally prosecuted under statues relating to vandalism, etc.

Opening just one such box however subject the box opener to civil litigation for the value/diminished value of the opened item in civil court, in a civil suit.

To make a statement that "signs cannot be part of a contract" is totally wrong. PS, re: merchant law. Suggest you try to find a copy of Mortensen v. Shoppers’ Haven. I wrote the brief while in law school.

439 posted on 09/04/2007 1:16:41 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
However, he put the security guard in a position where the guard had to do his job, and then he did not allow the guard to do his job.

If the guard had been adequately educated by Circuit City, he would have known that the customer has the right to refuse a receipt check. The manager should DEFINITELY have known better.

THEN, while he is embroiled in this dispute he calls the cops. And when the cop arrives, HE DOESN"T COOPERATE WITH THE COP HE CHOSE TO CALL! Was the cop simply supposed to tell the security guard to back off and let this guy go on his merry way?He provided an identity in accordance with Ohio law. He did not provide a photo ID, which is not required under Ohio law.
440 posted on 09/04/2007 1:33:26 PM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
THEN, while he is embroiled in this dispute he calls the cops. And when the cop arrives, HE DOESN"T COOPERATE WITH THE COP HE CHOSE TO CALL! Was the cop simply supposed to tell the security guard to back off and let this guy go on his merry way?

The article shows him being purposefully cooperative up to the point where the officer demanded ID. He allowed the cop to confirm that he had not stolen anything, apparently didn't even complain when the cop handed the bag to the employees for verification that he did not steal anything. Then when asked for ID he gave the cop his name as he is required to by law. How is that not cooperating? Or are we all supposed to cooperate when the police overstep their bounds?

What also really gets me is that after the shoplifting matter was settled, the cop apparently did not do his duty to respond to the complaint that he was called for -- someone being unlawfully detained.

441 posted on 09/04/2007 1:35:27 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"unlawfully deatined"

so this guy will use certain laws when they serve his interests.

the point is, the Ohio law that i read about ID made no mention of paper ID. so that could be open to interpretation. is it legal in Ohio to lie about your name, DOB? if a cop reasonably suspects you of lying about your name and DOB can they lawfully compel you to show photo ID? if so, then in my experience, this cop had reasonable suspicion to insist on seeing photo ID.

this was not a stop on the street initiated by the cop. this was a 911 call placed by the complainant who then refused to verify his ID by displaying a state issued ID.

and let me tell you this: this guy has his side of the story here. i have learned there are always 3 sides to any story. my side, your side, and what actually happened.

i wish i could have seen how this guy was talking to the cop and the guard. so again i ask, was the cop simply supposed to let the guy go?

442 posted on 09/04/2007 1:46:20 PM PDT by thefactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

sorry. should be “unlawfully detained” in the first sentence.


443 posted on 09/04/2007 1:47:09 PM PDT by thefactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: pierstroll
Which part of what I said seems wrong to you?

Just that you made blanket statements that may be correct for your state, but laws vary from state to state. It often depends on where yo live.

444 posted on 09/04/2007 1:49:10 PM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee
What I do find strange,however,is why you assume i’m a guy. For the record, i’m a girl.

I always worry about that. In any case, I tend to use "guy" and "guys" as a unisex term nowadays.

445 posted on 09/04/2007 1:51:22 PM PDT by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
this was not a stop on the street initiated by the cop. this was a 911 call placed by the complainant who then refused to verify his ID by displaying a state issued ID.

I wasn't aware that we were required to possess a state issued ID when riding in a car, or walking on the sidewalk.
446 posted on 09/04/2007 1:52:05 PM PDT by Quick1 (There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
the point is, the Ohio law that i read about ID made no mention of paper ID. so that could be open to interpretation. is it legal in Ohio to lie about your name, DOB?

In this case we have an Ohio law that specifically states he is only required to give name, address and date of birth, and the officer arrested him for not providing ID in direct contradiction of that law. That law is not vague.

i wish i could have seen how this guy was talking to the cop and the guard. so again i ask, was the cop simply supposed to let the guy go?

According to the article the guy knew what he was getting into, that he was pulling a calculated defense of his rights, so he was apparently very carefully choosing his words and his actions as does anyone in that situation. The last thing you want to do when standing up for your rights is give them a real reason to arrest you. But at the time that ID was demanded he was suspected of no crime, and in fact had just been cleared of any suspicion of one. According to the law the officer should have let him go.

The simple fact is that he was arrested for exercising his rights under the law, and bad cops don't like it when you do that.

447 posted on 09/04/2007 2:06:39 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; Melas
Melas;“The lesson here is that it doesn’t pay to be a dick. Period.”

antiRepublicrat; “I await the outcome of his probable suit against CC for unlawful detainment and against the police department for false arrest. It might end up paying quite handsomely.”

So according to antiRebublicrat it does pay to be a dick. At least he/she hopes it does. See how you are antiRepublicrat?

I agree with you however. I think this particular dick is in it for the money. Will he get it? Who knows, but whether he does or not, he’s still a dick, and being a dick isn’t worth all the money in the world. What good is it to be rich if everyone thinks you are a dick?

448 posted on 09/04/2007 2:08:30 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: monday

I’m sure you’re aware, but this is how ACLU types operate. They want everyone to feel sorry for them, to have pity on their poor souls, but when people don’t they start looking for some loophole in the law so they can sue, or get off charges brought against them by police. Always trying to blame others for their sorry lot in life, looking for some way to “stick it to the man”, since they have no hope of ever being “the man” themselves. Obviously, most true conservatives don’t feel this way, and actually have contempt for such pathetic losers.

Meanwhile AntiRepublican’s eyes are getting big just daydreaming about how to stick it to Circuit City and the local police, he’s even making calls up there in support of the ACLU now, probably wants to turn it into some sort of class action suit where he can claim he too had his bag searched once, and wants some sort of payoff for his mistreatment now too LOL.


449 posted on 09/04/2007 3:37:19 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: monday
You completely ignored the rest of my post.

I've conceded that yes, it's a small thing. I'm not going to deny that the guy was trying to test a limit. But is he right? Does he have legal grounds for his refusal to show the receipt in the first place?

Let's say I have a store in Ohio. One day I find out there's lots of shoplifting going on in my store. So I sit down and scratch my head and try to come up with ways to cut down on the losses.

Hey, I say to myself, I know. I can hire a big intimidating-looking dude to sit by the exit and check people's receipts and bags on the way out.

Next day I have a big intimidating-looking dude sitting by the exit, checking receipts and bags on the way out.

The only problem is, I haven't checked my state and local statutes to see what I can or cannot legally do to try to prevent shoplifting while respecting the civil rights of my customers.

The state (Ohio) law happens to say that "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... detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity." OK, so how am I determining who's worthy of suspicion and possibly detention? Can I label anyone who walks into my store suspicious, or does that fly in the face of "innocent until proven guilty" and violate the civil rights of my patrons?

Then the Ohio law says that even if I do detain someone I suspect of shoplifting, I "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." So what's the definition of "property belonging to the person"? Does a receipt fall under the definition?

And as I said, maybe this seems like a small senseless thing to put up a fight about, but if the man's right he's right and NOBODY should be allowed to just make laws up as they go along. There's a formal procedure in this country for changing laws - that's where we vote and petition to get it to happen (or to not happen).

What's wrong with the store working within the confines of the law, or putting the lawyers to work looking for loopholes in the law, to practice effective loss prevention?

450 posted on 09/04/2007 4:01:49 PM PDT by dbwz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 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