Free Republic

Certainly the original complaint is the wild card.

I would suggest to anyone who is interested to study the difference between a lawful detention and what level of suspicion is needed for it and how that differs from a consensual encounter.

Law enforcement will often participate in a consensual encounter with some individual who seems out of place in a neighborhood for instance. The vast majority of the time the subject will comply and will answer the officer’s questions. In a consensual encounter, however, the subject is free to leave and does not have to answer the officer’s questions. But that is a relatively rare event that someone would do that because they don’t want to be rude or are scared to upset the officer. When it does occur, that is when we see the officer often overreacting and operating outside the bounds of legal authority.

“If you are stopped for a legal reason...”

The cops had a complaint. We do not know what the complainer said, but I’d bet she (probably a she) said the guy was acting weird and dangerous. Complainers don’t always stick to the facts.

Once the complaint has been made, the cops DO have a legal basis for finding out what is happening.

If the complaing is of an illegal activity, yes you are correct. If the complaing was simply “I saw a man carrying a rifle.” There is no illegal activity and thus no reasonable suspicion and thus no authority to disarm. The only authority is to conduct a consensual encounter.

“The cops had a complaint. We do not know what the complainer said, but I’d bet she (probably a she) said the guy was acting weird and dangerous. Complainers don’t always stick to the facts.

Once the complaint has been made, the cops DO have a legal basis for finding out what is happening.”

Sure, there’s the possibility the caller said the subject was pointing the rifle at traffic passing by. We don’t know, but that would change the situation entirely.

“Not really. If you are stopped for any reason, the cop has the right to take control of the scene while figuring out what is going on. And in many cases, that means taking guns away from people while they ask questions and see what is happening. I was told to expect every traffic stop to include turning my gun over to the cop for the duration of the traffic stop. They do not need to arrest you first.

Not a lawyer, but that is what I was taught in Arizona, which is a pretty gun friendly state.”

During a traffic stop, you have been detained because of reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. The cop cannot just pull you over because he feels like it. There have to be articulable facts of a crime.

“Not really. If you are stopped for any reason, the cop has the right to take control of the scene while figuring out what is going on. And in many cases, that means taking guns away from people while they ask questions and see what is happening. I was told to expect every traffic stop to include turning my gun over to the cop for the duration of the traffic stop. They do not need to arrest you first.

Not a lawyer, but that is what I was taught in Arizona, which is a pretty gun friendly state.”

Stopped for any legal reason, yes. If you are stopped for a legal reason, there is already reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. During that “investigation” the police can disarm you. During the incident we are discussing, there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, thus no “investigation” and no authority to disarm.

“IIRC, cops have the right in most states to disarm you while investigating what is going on. After that, if there is no crime, they have to return the unloaded gun & ammo to you. At least, that is what I was taught in my CCW class in Arizona...”

“Yes, but there is a huge difference between an investigation and a consensual encounter. Unless we are missing additional facts, this would not be an investigation, but rather a voluntary consensual encounter.”

In other words, no crime had been committed, thus there is no investigation.

Yes, but there is a huge difference between an investigation and a consensual encounter. Unless we are missing additional facts, this would not be an investigation, but rather a voluntary consensual encounter.

“The officer may have wanted to see if it was fully automatic as well which would have changed its status as to whether it was a legal carry or not.”

The officer may want to do a lot of things, but legally he had no right to confiscate or even inspect the weapon. The cop had the right to conduct a consensual encounter, which is completely voluntary on the part of the subject. In other words, he does not have to stop or talk to the police. Unless the officer could provide articlable facts that rise to the level of reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur, he had no legal standing to detain or confiscate.

“...(NEVER rely on a jack stand for this)...”

Why not?

Agreed. If my current contact with field grade officers is representative of the Army as a whole, it leads me to believe that 1. most are quite left-leaning with regard to gun control; 2. most will openly mock those that believe in small government; 3. there are many in the Army who believe that Posse Comitatus should be repealed

“How come they have to wait 20 years for any benefits and congressional members only have to serve one term to get full benefits and perks?”

Urban legend...completely innacurate.

I only drink single malt Islays, neat.
In order of preference.
Laphroaig
Ardbeg
Bowmore

It’s probably a salvaged title.

I think it’s Gilroy.

“Isn’t Gilford still the Garlic Capitol of the World?”

“The Party” is an underated comedy. Very funny stuff.

The store must have reasonable suspicion of theft in order to demand a receipt check. Without reasonable suspicion, the store can only ask to check the receipt. The customer’s compliance is completely voluntary.

Stores can ASK to see your receipt. The customer’s compliance is completely voluntary. The customer has no obligation to show the receipt and the store is powerless to stop the customer.
The only time the store can detain a customer is if the store has a reasonable suspicion of theft backed by articulable facts. In other words, the store has to state specifics as to why they believe the customer has stolen goods. The court system has ruled consistently that refusal to submit to a search cannot be used against the suspect to justify a search.

Part of the poor work ethic can be attributed to an employer’s work environment.

The hard worker who gives honest effort for honest pay may transform into one of these “slugs.” A hard worker sees his coworkers who show up late, leave early, chat on the cell phone, play on the internet, etc. are not disciplined and are paid the same as he. And if he continues to be the star worker, his reward may not be a promotion or positive recognition, but rather he is rewarded with additional work and still at the same pay as his lazy coworkers.

This does not even include promotions based on minority status instead of merit. The hard worker needs to ultimately leave that job and find one that does reward his efforts, but those type of employers are becoming as rare as the hard working recent college grad.

You wrote: “His twin was Aaron.”

My reply: Almost...Elvis’ middle name was Aaron or Aron depending on who you ask. His twin was named Jesse Garon.

This is an incident of credit card fraud (theft) not identity theft.

meyer wrote:
“Ain’t got no gas” - Carl Childers.
I hope that somebody knows who Carl Childers is.

response:
Maybe his mower runs on biscuits and mustard.

“A large number of chains still require it, however. And that is beyond their contract. It is part of the anti-fraud initiative.”

“Tell Circuit City. I lost my ID and they would NOT let me use my credit card yesterday and they don’t have debit as an option either.”

Circuit City is perhaps the worst offender, from what I understand. Still there are many places that attempt to require an ID with use of a signed credit card. I merely point out to the store manager that they are violating the terms that they agreed to with the credit card companies. Most managers have no idea what’s in the contract and some have offered to get a copy in order to prove me wrong. Of course once they get their copy of the contract they see that they are wrong. I’ve never had to leave a store without my purchases, but I don’t shop at Circuit City.

MasterCard makes it easy to file a complaint via their website. With Visa you need to call Visa and/or the card issuing bank with the complaint. Penalties for violating the contract range from fines to loss of ability to take credit cards.

Also, FYI, it is forbidden for merchants to require a minimum purchase with use a credit card or adding a credit card surcharge to your purchase.

“And half the population can’t even remember their ID for the credit card they use...”

No form of ID is required for using a signed credit card. It’s part of the contract consumer’s signed when they took the card and it’s part of the contract merchants signed when they decided to accept credit cards.

The bottom line is the store can ask to verify your receipt and purchases, but the consumer is under no obligation to allow the search. The only way the store can detain and/or search someone leaving the store is if they have a reasonable suspicion that the consumer has shoplifted.

The reasonable suspicion must be “articulable.” It cannot be a mere hunch, or that the consumer looks like a bad character. It must be something concrete such as seeing the consumer place an item in his pocket and not paying for it.

These receipt checks that many stores perform near the exit are completely voluntary on the part of the consumer. If you wish to allow a search of your property upon exiting the store, you may. If you do not wish to allow the search, you may leave without doing so. The store has no legal authority to force the search unless it has a reasonable suspicion. For more information, look up “shopkeeper’s privilege” on the internet.

The search at store exits is legal because it is completely voluntary. If you want to be searched, you may allow it. If you do not want to submit to a search, there is nothing the store can do to stop you.

The only way the store can detain or search you is if they have reasonable suspicion of theft. It's a lesser degree of probable cause allowed to stores because of "shopkeeper's privilege."

Bottom line, next time the store asks you to submit to a search, ask the loss prevention clerk to articulate what reasonable suspicion he or she has to justify a search. If they have none, you are free to go. The only recourse the store has is to ban you from the store in the future.

I believe you've confused my post with someone else's. Being brought up on charges was a quote from another poster. I replied similar to what you stated.

"I have one message for these hoodlums: These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so if necessary, and I expect they will."

Her message should have been a little more simple and should have been issued on Monday: "Our policy toward looters is very simple -- Shoot to Kill. We will not try to apprehend or arrest them, we will simply shoot anyone looting."


Yes, that would have been a bit more effective. However, to restore order a handful of looters would acutally have to be shot. And no official is stupid enough to give such an order. No police chief, county sheriff, city councilman, mayor, or governor will ever give such an order. It would be political and personal suicide for the individual who gave such an order, even though the result would be the restoration of order.

As soon as the first looter was shot, the official who gave the order to do so would be second-guessed, harrangued by the race baiters, figuratively lynched, under investigation, face criminal charges, lose their job, and be sued into oblivion. That's why no one will give such an order.

"scores of police officers simply abandoning their posts to flee a city gone at least temporarily mad."

Not abandoned but deserted their post in time of need. They should be brought up on charges.

What charges would you suggest? They are police officers not soldiers. They are free to quit their job at any time.

And the article doesn't even mention that Lyle Robinson's son was kidnapped by Mexican military and taken into Mexico several years ago.

Sorry about that. I posted a link on another post with the same title.

Illegal aliens receive the care for "free", because they are judgment proof (lack any assets that can be recovered in a lawsuit - and since they are often paid in cash under the table, nothing to garnish either). This guy/his wife has money available to pay the hospital - they just don't want to.


That's why you don't take ID with you and don't give your real name and address.

They are 12-13 percent of the population.

Like many people I've largely resigned myself to not having political/social/economic discussions with liberals. I've often said that it's one of the easiest things in the world to defeat a liberal in an argument. But it's one of the more difficult things in the world to get them to understand that they've been defeated.

Whenever I discuss taxes with a liberal, they of course believe the current progressive tax system is fair. Actually, most liberals believe it isn't progressive enough. I tell them that I agree...the current system is fair...all parties are given equal and impartial treatment. If it is fair for people at the bottome income levels to pay no tax and those at the top income levels to be heavily taxed, it would still be fair if those roles were reversed. That is the basic meaning of fair is it not? If the current system is fair, who could oppose it? Now, instead of a progressive tax, we have a regressive tax. Top earners pay no tax and bottom earners pay at the highest rate. The liberal response is that "that's not fair." Suddenly their definition of fair changes.

"we can get in trouble for not carding - or if a parent comes in and buys some coolers and happens to have a minor along (buying groceries etc..) - the store and parents and we can get in trouble (fined and fired) for 'selling to/buying for a minor' if the teenager puts the bag into the cart or pushes the cart outside. It's utterly ridiculous."


I've wondered about all the technicalities involved in carding someone with a minor. If a mother is buying groceries and a bottle of wine and has her 8 year old son with her, do you card the son?

How much do orchestra musicians earn? I'm sure it depends on the instrument, but I'd like to know.

"TWIRP Day" -- when boys dress like girls and girls dress like boys-- in favor of "Camo Day."


I suppose the girls just wore their normal attire since most "women" these days wear men's clothing.

Now for the real kicker....how many of those 2500 criminal aliens for the month of October did the Asst. U.S. Attorney prosecute? The figure should hover around 1%.

I didn't believe the rate they were quoting me was the actual rate since it was so much higer than other local lenders. I simply asked my loan officer to fax me the official loan interest rate so I could see it for myself. My loan officer then began to backtrack and stated something to the effect that it did seem like a high interest rate and that she would check into it. Twenty minutes later she calls me back and states that it was just an honest mix up and the actual rate was x.xx, which actually was better than any other local lender. As I said very sarcastically on the phone...."yes I'm sure it was just an honest mix up........"

I guess it's possible, but I'm probably a bit more cynical about these things, especially when it comes to finances. If these were honest errors, they would make as many in favor of the customer as they do against the customer. But I suspect errors that work in favor of the customer almost never happen. The "honest mistakes" always seem to be in favor of the loan company.

Yes, that's what I'm planning on doing. But I wondered if anyone else had a similar situation.

The reason the Founders wanted a well armed militia was not only to serve as a force against an invading army but also as a check against the potential tyranny of its own government. The Founders had just thrown off the shackles of what they thought was an oppressive government with a standing army (Britain). A well armed citizenry was to serve as the nation's fighting force, but also as a balance to its own government.

With todays standing armies and the power of the federal government, a well armed citizenry is needed now more than ever.

The Shopkeeper's Privilege is an affirmative defense against a charge of false imprisonment. Is that where you are confused?

You are correct, the shopkeepers's privilege does provide a level of immunity. My argument, although it's gotten off track, is simply that the receipt verification at the exit is voluntary. The guard can stop a customer, as you said, with reasonable suspicion to investigate a possible theft. However, the guard at the exit checking every customer who leaves with a purchase does not fall under shopkeeper's privilege because no level of suspicion has previously been determined prior to the guard's investigation.

That's not to say the guard at the exit is conducting an illegal search, because the customers voluntarily show their receipts and consent to a search. Those who don't consent, have no obligation to be searched unless the guard can articulate reasonable suspicion.

I guess that's the funny thing about the law; many people with many different interpretations.


Tell that to the judge when you attempt to sue a store for detaining you on the premises after you refuse to show your receipt.

I don't plan on suing any store, and I doubt any plaintiff would win in such a case unless excessive force or outrageous conduct on the store's part came into play.

Funny you say that, because my Prosser on Torts equates "probable cause" with "reasonable belief," and goes on to say that if the shopkeeper reasonably believes you are shoplifting, then he has the statutory (check individual jurisdiction) privilege to reasonably detain you on the premises until the issue is decided.

I guess that's the funny thing about the law; many people with many different interpretations.

That sounds like the Wal-Mart policy. Here in Kansas though All I have to do is see the shoplifter conceal the retail item on their person and I can apprehend them at that time.



Yes, you can, but you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit. They haven't stolen anything unless they've left the store with the unpaid merchandise. If you see someone conceal something in the store and you approach them to ask them about it or something of that nature, that's fine. But if the customer refuses to talk to you, you cannot apprehend/detain/arrest him at that point. At least not legally.

Where did you find this "universally accepted standard?"


I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but that "standard" is what is found in law books, taught in law school, and practiced by the courts.