Am I crazy - I can't believe anyone who supports this idiot

[LynneSin]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1745824&mesg_id=1745824

All because the person wouldn't show his receipt while leaving Circuit City. I'm getting slammed in GD and personally I think this is a damn joke of someone trying to claim constitution rights.

It was a receipt check which has been common in stores even before 9/11. It helps stores cut down on theft.

Someone tell me I'm not crazy

[skygazer]

1. They are common

But unless the store is one like Costco in which you have to be a member, they cannot make you show your receipt unless they have probably cause to believe you've stolen something.

Personally, the receipt check annoys me - it assumes guilt on the part of the customer and I question how much it cuts down on theft.

I don't make a big deal out of it - that would be a waste of my time. But I don't particularly care for it.

[LynneSin]

4. Most of the time they just glance at the receipt, glance at the bag

and then let you go.

And this has been going on for well over a decade so you can't blame 9/11 and the patriot act for this one.

Back in the 90s I use to buy CDs at Circuit City because they had a really great selection of CDs and they were all like $9.99. So trust me - this has been done plenty of times

[skygazer]

11. I realize this

And like I said, I don't make a big deal out of it. But I don't like the policy and by law, they can't make you show the receipt unless they have probable cause that you've stolen something.

I do understand where the guy in that thread is coming from. I also understand where you're coming from and I think he sounds like a bit of an asshole. BUT the basic premise is the mentality that assumes every customer is a thief and the fact that stores seem to feel they have a right to search them when they in fact don't.

I don't blame the patriot act or 9/11 - I'm well aware of how long its been going on. But I've never liked it or thought it was good policy.

[Midlodemocrat]

15. My understanding is that they can't invoke 'probable cause'

that you have stolen something until you have actually left the store. Because even if something is hidden from view, there is no way to determine whether or not you would have paid for it prior to leaving.

I seem to remember from college a case where a young woman was apprehended by store security for putting lingerie in her bag, and she was subsequently found innocent because the defense argued that security had no way of predicting that she didn't intend to pay for it.

Mind you, this was 25 years ago that I was in college, so the case name escapes me completely.

[Clintonista2]

28. I'm pretty sure that by law they CAN make you show your receipt

What if a security guard witnesses you taking an item out of the store that you didn't pay for? Can they ask you for a reciept then? Of course they can.

[skygazer]

38. When you are outside the store, yes

Until then, you have not removed it from the premises.

I work retail - we are not allowed to detain someone inside the store and stopping someone and asking for their receipt is detaining them.

[Midlodemocrat]

6. Well, at Costco, it cuts both ways. If you have something in

your cart priced at less than $5 that isn't on the receipt, you don't have to go back and pay for it.

And, I have been overcharged at Costco in the past, and the receipt checker caught it. Mostly during the Holiday season when everyone is in a hurry.

[Tektonik]

2. You're not crazy

Receipt checks at many, many stores have existed for a while, and I do not see a problem with them. I'd rather they innocuously check my receipt for a half second than have them hike up prices or lower workers' wages/hours because of theft.

[LSK]

3. You need to READ THE WHOLE THING

It really has nothing to do with showing a receipt and more to do with having to show a drivers license when you are not even driving a car.

[LynneSin]

5. The part where the blogger said he doesn't want to live life smoothly

The man made a decision about 2 seconds of his life and turned the proverbial anthill into a mountain.

[LSK]

10. the cop had no right to ask for the license

I don't always carry mine with me if I am taking a walk or something. Do I have to be arrested too??? What is this, a police state?????

I have no problem showing receipts at doors, because Best Buy has always done this as does Frys.

[LynneSin]

12. Driver's license is identification - the blogger even said...

"However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. "

We have better things to rally around

[LSK]

14. why do I have to show my identification?????

AGAIN, what if I am just taking a walk down the street with no wallet? Is that illegal now?

:shrug:

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Actually, I believe it has been for many, many years.

I believe being an adult and not having identification harkens back to 'vagrancy' laws, some of which unfortunately are still on the books.

I could be wrong, but I remember hearing that in grad. school. Long time ago, and things may have changed, but I don't recall hearing about it if they did.

[Kutjara]

31. Indeed, and it goes even further.

In many states, the vagrancy laws are still on the books (and vigorously enforced, usually against the homeless). Not only is it a requirement to carry a valid form of ID (as defined by the state) when in public, it is also a requirement that you show the ID "upon request" by an authorized officer of the law. Failure to do so is an arrestable offense. You can also be arrested for not having sufficient funds to "purchase a meal." The amount of said funds deemed sufficient is up to the discretion of the officer.

Usually, the only forms of ID considered universally valid are a drivers' license, a State-issued ID card, or a passport.

[redqueen]

63. Uh oh! You mean police CAN ask you for ID for no reason?

Well that shoots down half the arguments in that thread.

[krispos42]

74. Apparantly not in Ohio. The guy summarized Ohio statute n/t

[redqueen]

78. Seemed to me that the statute said

that he only had to provide certain information if asked.

I don't remember seeing anything about police asking for a form of ID.

[krispos42]

80. Sorry, misread the question

They can't ask for for valid ID. They can ask you for your name, address, and date of birth, I believe, but you don't have to document the information you give.

Unless you're driving, of course.

[Gormy Cuss]

95. Your memory is correct that identify statutes were based in vagrancy laws.

The kicker is those laws did not specify showing a formal state identification card such as a driver's license. They did require a person to respond with name, address, stating the nature of their business (for example, where the person is headed or why they're standing on the street corner at 3 AM.)

Only in some states do identify laws require production of formal ID and even then the circumstances are usually limited.

Here's a recent court case describing it:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-5554&friend=washingtonpost

[Greyskye]

99. I was stopped by cops while walking, and did not have ID

About 10 or more years ago, I was visiting some friends in Oregon. We'd been drinking a bit, and I went for a walk around the neighborhood to clear my head.

I was a few blocks away walking down the sidewalk, when a police car cruises by, and stops ahead of me. When I walk by, they stop me. They wanted to know what I was doing. I told them. They asked for ID. I explained I didn't have any with me, that it was at my friends house. What was his address? Don't know - the address was in the car and I didn't remember what it was. I gave them my drivers license number which I remembered, as well as my home address. After running that info and finding that I had a clean slate, they decided that I evidently wasn't an imminent threat to the community, and let me continue on my way. With a stern warning to always carry some ID. :eyes:

[Oeditpus Rex]

24. If someone hollers 'FAGGOT!' at a gay person

that's about half a second of their life.

[mike_c]

7. the guy stood firm on his rights....

I admire him for it, and I hope he sues the pants off of the store employee, the company, and the cop who arrested him. On the other hand, we are completely free to surrender our rights in exchange for convenience whenever we wish. That's the choice that seems to make the most sense to you. It's not crazy. But it's equally "not crazy" to insist that businesses respect our rights before protecting their profits.

[LynneSin]

13. I just think there is more than what's in the blog

The guy said "However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. "

He was itching for a fight.

There's standing for your rights and then there is stupidity

[skygazer]

17. Rosa Parks was itching for a fight, too

Refusing to leave that seat was a calculated move, meant to stimulate an arrest and make a test case. Sometimes things that should change don't unless someone makes a complete nuisance of themselves.

[Oeditpus Rex]

22. Yeah, but she was stupid, too

I mean, what's wrong with the back of the bus? :shrug:




:sarcasm:

[jonnyblitz]

29. yeah, it would only have taken 2 seconds of her life to walk to

the back of it. :crazy:

[Clintonista2]

26. Actually

Rosa Parks has said that she only did it because she was tired, and that she wasn't making a political statement at the time.

[Oeditpus Rex]

30. Oh, well

The hell with her, then.

:eyes:

[Clintonista2]

36. No, all I'm saying is

You don't have to be overly aggressive/insolent to be revolutionary. People who try to compare Rosa Parks with the man who refused to show his reciept at a circut city are delusional.

[skygazer]

40. Well, those assholes who threw the Boston Tea Party shoulda been locked up then, I guess

You have an interesting way of looking at civil disobedience - we have to do it in a quiet and polite manner evidently.

[Clintonista2]

44. Wow, you are a defensive one, aren't you?

Who's the next great revolutionary leader? The man who punches out the clerk at the store because he's not allowed to return his sweater? :rofl:

[skygazer]

54. Not defensive at all

Simply trying to make a point. I've always liked that bumper sticker that says, "Well-behaved women rarely make history." The same is true with about any kind of social change - its usually brought about by people behaving obnoxiously.

And you never answered my question about Rosa Parks - would her actions have been wrong had she done them solely to make a point?

[Clintonista2]

59. Of course not, I was simply debunking your lie

Rosa Parks didn't get on that bus "itching for a fight", in fact, here's what she herself said:

"My only concern was to get home after a hard day's work. "

That doesn't make what she did any less noble or courageous.

[skygazer]

66. My "lie"

Nice personal attack there.

http://www.grandtimes.com/rosa.html

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man forty years ago on December 1, 1955, she was tired and weary from a long day of work.

At least that's how the event has been retold countless times and recorded in our history books. But, there's a misconception here that does not do justice to the woman whose act of courage began turning the wheels of the civil rights movement on that fateful day.

Rosa Parks was physically tired, but no more than you or I after a long day's work. In fact, under other circumstances, she would have probably given up her seat willingly to a child or elderly person. But this time Parks was tired of the treatment she and other African Americans received every day of their lives, what with the racism, segregation, and Jim Crow laws of the time.

"Our mistreatment was just not right, and I was tired of it," writes Parks in her recent book, Quiet Strength, (ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1994). "I kept thinking about my mother and my grandparents, and how strong they were. I knew there was a possibility of being mistreated, but an opportunity was being given to me to do what I had asked of others."

I will accept an apology, however, because that's the kind of person I am.

[Clintonista2]

75. Yes, your lie

Here is what you wrote, regarding her being a member of the NAACP:

"Which was looking for a test case to fight the segregation of blacks in the area. As an upstanding citizen with no skeletons in her closet, she was a perfect candidate. The situation arose, she took it knowing full well what the result would be."

Here is what Rosa Parks said:

"At the time I was arrested I had no idea it would turn into this. It was just a day like any other day. The only thing that made it significant was that the masses of the people joined in."

Hmm who to believe? You, who claim that what Rosa Parks did was premeditated by the NAACP, with Rosa Parks being specifically "chosen" by them because of her clean record. Or should I believe Rosa Parks herself, who says differently? Your e-rage is blinding you from the truth.

[skygazer]

82. And I stand by it

Rosa Parks was physically tired, but no more than you or I after a long day's work. In fact, under other circumstances, she would have probably given up her seat willingly to a child or elderly person. But this time Parks was tired of the treatment she and other African Americans received every day of their lives, what with the racism, segregation, and Jim Crow laws of the time.

"Our mistreatment was just not right, and I was tired of it," writes Parks in her recent book, Quiet Strength, (ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1994). "I kept thinking about my mother and my grandparents, and how strong they were. I knew there was a possibility of being mistreated, but an opportunity was being given to me to do what I had asked of others."



I did not say she was "chosen" by the NAACP - I said that when the situation arose, and because she was an upstanding citizen with no skeletons in her closet, she was a perfect candidate.

Again, I'll highlight her own words - "...but an opportunity was being given to me to do what I had asked of others."

I'm not going to argue semantics or history with you. And I love your description of my "e-rage" - that's very cute. Honey, I don't get enraged by debating with faceless people on the internet. But bless your little heart all the same. :rofl:

[Clintonista2]

88. Let's make you melt by sprinkling some logic on you

Let's break down your statement:

The NAACP:
=====================================================================================================
1) was looking for

2)a test case

3)to fight the segregation of blacks in the area.

4)As an upstanding citizen with no skeletons in her closet, she was a perfect candidate.
=====================================================================================================
So the NAACP was specifically looking for a "test case", which was going to fight the segregation of blacks in the area. Rosa Parks was the NAACP's candidate, due to her clean record. So tell me which of the following you disagree with:

1) The NAACP was looking for a test case to fight the segregation of blacks in the area
2) Rosa Parks was chosen as the candidate by the NAACP, due to her clean record

[skygazer]

94. Do you always have this much time to waste?

Arguing about petty points of semantics? No matter what I say here, you're going to insist that I'm wrong, contradicting myself and a liar. I've pointed out several times exactly what I meant. If you're too stupid to understand it, that's your problem.

Hasta la vista.

[Clintonista2]

102. Ahh how I love intelligent debate- "You're stupid!" nt.

[skygazer]

112. I call it like I see it

You've called me a liar. Twice. Oh, but that's okay because you're the one that did it. Or something. I've provided backup for my statements complete with link which you have not. I've repeatedly and pretty clearly, I think, re-stated what I was trying to put across in words of one syllable and you insist on harping and harping on the same thing. But I'm the one who can't intelligently debate.

Sure. Okay. Whatever you say. :eyes:

[Clintonista2]

56. If you consider stores checking your reciept to be

a civil rights violation on par with discrimination against African Americans, then you are greatly minimizing what blacks went through, and I find that racist and disguisting.

[skygazer]

Ah, the racist card!`

I wondered when that would show up.

You're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm trying to point out which is not that the two situations are comparable as civil rights violations but that the fact that someone is "itching for a fight" is not a reason to disregard what they're trying to highlight as a perceived injustice.

Look, just because you don't feel that having a receipt check is a violation of your civil rights, some people might. And dismissing that because they happen to go about it in a confrontational way is just plain silly.

[Oeditpus Rex]

46. Only because of the degree of importance of their respective 'revolutions'

Then again, who's to say this incident won't lead to stupid bag-search rules being declared unconstitutional, and even to further examination of the many Fourth Amendment rights we've lost under the Wregime? :shrug:

[skygazer]

35. Rosa Parks was a member of the local NAACP

Which was looking for a test case to fight the segregation of blacks in the area. As an upstanding citizen with no skeletons in her closet, she was a perfect candidate. The situation arose, she took it knowing full well what the result would be.

That makes it no more or less a courageous act and I'm curious what your point is. Do you feel it would be wrong had she done it purely to make a political statement?

[Clintonista2]

37. Read my reply #36

[redqueen]

43. Oh my goodness...

Is refusing to show a receipt (an inconvenience based on loss prevention) really comparable to what Rosa Parks went through (an inconvenience based on the fact that she was black)?

[Clintonista2]

47. Apparently the reciept event is comparable to the boston tea party aswell

Read reply #40 :rofl:

[redqueen]

49. Ohhhhh god...

I don't wanna look!

[LynneSin]

57. The Rosa Park comparison started getting old when Smokers tried to use it

and then some white Christian in Delaware used it to justify praying at football games.

What we choose to do and what we inherit from birth are 2 completely different things

[skygazer]

58. Of course not

And if you read the post, that's not what I was comparing it to. The poster seemed to feel that the guy at the store did not deserve any support because he was "itching for a fight." I fail to see why that's such a bad thing - when you're trying to make a point about something you see as an injustice, of course you're itching for a fight.

Whether you or I agree with his take on things, I don't see why that particular aspect of it automatically negates his point of view.

[redqueen]

61. I don't think it automatically negates his point of view.

IMO it only gives more credence to the possibility that this guy's an idiot. The reason I say so is not cause he chose to seek out a battle over an injustice, it's the injustice he chose to get all indignant about.

With SO MANY battles in the world to fight... DUers back this clown up.

*sigh*

[skygazer]

73. Everyone chooses their own battles

For him, apparently this is an important one. Who am I or anyone else to tell him he's wrong and should be fighting about something else?

And for what it's worth, while its not a battle I choose to fight, I do find the policies irritating and intrusive.

[redqueen]

77. Who am I to tell him?

Someone who sees the real dangers this planet faces.

Doesn't matter though. If he wants to fight the evils of receipt-showing, he's free to do so. I'm free to stand agog at what I perceive to be the absolute assbaggery of it, too.

[LynneSin]

48. Oh pul-lease - not the Rosa Park comparision

Rosa Park had no choice in being an African American - she was born that way.

This person had a choice to comply or be difficult. Like I said - there is more to this story then what the blogger is posting

[skygazer]

64. "A choice to comply or be difficult"

Oh, so if I'm not born a certain way, I have no right to complain about unfair treatment. This thread gets more bizarre by the minute.

So I can just choose not to go to a political protest because I have a choice of who to vote for. Or choose not to patronise a business that discriminates against gays because I can go somewhere else. What are the "rules" here for what I can or can't protest? I honestly don't understand.

You don't think its a big deal to have your receipt checked. That's fine. But some people do and just because they don't protest it politely doesn't make their opinion any less valid.

[LynneSin]

93. You've said something I truly agree with

"This thread gets more bizarre by the minute."

There are people today that are refusing to comply by "not sitting in the back of the bus" but unfortunately it's used way to frequently by people justifying bizare things like this guy and his receipt.

[skygazer]

96. I see - so you're the arbiter of what's important

I'll remember to check in with you the next time I want to complain about something. :eyes:

[LynneSin]

104. Well, if we lived in a country where absolutely nothing else was going wrong

I suppose I was out of line.

I just think there are more important things we should be arguing about - which also questions me to why I continue posting about this.

I think what really ticks me off is the concept that DUers were posting about getting enough recommendations to get this on the home page of DU. Seriously - is nothing else going wrong in this world?

[skygazer]

134. Okay

So you've posted several dozen comments in GD about this. And imported it over here. But those who defend the guy are getting verbally spanked because "there are more important thing we should be arguing about."

:rofl:

:P

:hug:

[LynneSin]

137. I've asked to have them lock this thread

I really didn't think I was starting a flame war.

Once again I assumed and look at what an ass I made of myself.

:eyes:

You know I adore you!

[skygazer]

139. Back atcha, babe

:hug:

[Oeditpus Rex]

72. Jesus, Lynne, do you HEAR yourself??

"Comply or be difficult."

I'm literally shaking my head.

Of course there's more to the story. There's always more to the story. But you assume the rest of it will rightfully contradict what we know now.

Why are you standing so firmly against a guy who just got fed up with being assumed a criminal? :shrug:

[LynneSin]

90. Do you hear yourself

When did Rosa Park choose to be a black woman? I'm curious to know. These were rules used to oppress a very large group of people who differ only by the color of their skin.

I'm guessing you have a point - sounds like this guy was born a dickhead and simply living out his destiny. He could have simply flashed a receipt and none of this would have happened.

[Oeditpus Rex]

98. And Ms. ParkS

could've simply sat in the back of the bus.

What someone was born has nothing to do with anything. Rosa ParkS made a choice to refuse to move. This guy made a choice to refuse to surrender his Fourth Amendment rights.

[LynneSin]

106. Seriously - did you bump your head this morning

How is showing your receipt oppressing an entire race of people?

It's called loss prevention and it's been done for decades. The only way I'd get upset is if this guy proved that the store clerk was racial profiling the people getting the receipt checks.

[Oeditpus Rex]

113. What does race have to do with it?

Why can't it just be about People? Law-abiding citizens, y'know?

And how was "loss prevention" handled before stores started using presumption of guilt to search customers?

"It's been done for decades" is a pretty lame excuse for anything — right up there with "All the other kids are doing it."

[Clintonista2]

91. Except that the man was not specifically targetted

everybody had to show their reciept before leaving the store. The store has a right to know whether or not you paid for the items you are attempting to leave the store with.

[LynneSin]

97. In fact - if the store was only targetting people of a certain race

then we have a point.

(and when I say race I also mean nationality, sexual orientation, religious background etc. etc.)

Whether or not the receipt flashing is in violation of our rights (and it probably is), I also believe that stores have a right to do what can be done to prevent loss of merchandise. I don't have any numbers of how many thefts were prevented by this method, but personally I think it's such a non-issue to be getting all bent out of shape defending this blogger

[Oeditpus Rex]

103. Uh...

Wouldn't that be determined at the check-out counter? :shrug:

[Clintonista2]

107. Obviousley not

Otherwise, there would be no such thing as shoplifting.

[LynneSin]

111. Last time I checked most registered were not directly in front of the store

Also, there are many times I've bought something only to go back into the store realizing there was something else I needed. Finally - perhaps I was returning something and had the item still in the bag.

Trust me you don't need to go through a registered to walk out of a store carrying a store bag.

[Oeditpus Rex]

If I'm gonna boost something from a store

it's not gonna be in a bag when I get to the register — it's gonna be hidden on me somewhere. And I'd be a damned fool to switch it from its hiding place to the bag as I walk from the register to the door, knowing they're gonna check the bag, wouldn't I?

So I don't see the point of this "loss prevention" tactic in the first place.

[skygazer]

117. Every booster I ever knew

And I've known a few - has made the same point.

[Clintonista2]

126. Well, not everybody is as smart as you

Surprised? :rofl:

[Gormy Cuss]

110. The store personnel prevented him from leaving the parking lot.

That's the issue related to the store, not whether their receipt check policy is a violation of civil rights.

The other and bigger issue is the action of the police officer.

and of course all of this is his version of the story and may never have happened at all, etc.

[HEyHEY]

108. Dude.... the situation is SOOO different

[skygazer]

114. Of course it is

I was simply pointing out that "itching for a fight" is not necessarily a good reason to dismiss a person's concerns.

Oh, and I'm not a dude. :)

[Clintonista2]

131. But you used a false example to prove it

Since Rosa Parks was not "itching for a fight"

[skygazer]

135. Three times

You like to toss out the personal attacks but you can't take 'em, can ya? :rofl:

[Connonym]

19. Well stated, I'm in agreement n/t

[johnnie]

122. "I hope he sues the pants off of the store employee"

LOL.. yeah, take what he can get from some high school dude making 6 bucks an hour working at some electronic store. That'll show 'em who's boss.

[seaglass]

125. Do you admire him for shopping at a store that announced lay offs

of thousands of experienced employees in favor of cheaper new hires?

I admire those people who simply stopped shopping at Circuit City in defense of the workers way more than someone who is stamping his feet about showing a receipt.

The arrest was wrong but refusing to show a receipt in the scheme of things is just SO trivial and self-centered.

[Dora]

8. I agree with you.

That guy was spoiling for a confrontation, and it seemed as if he'd been seeking an opportunity to create just such an "arrestable" situation.

Whether the arrest was legally justifiable or not - Jesus - what a waste of that police officer's time. Too bad he made the poor choice to give this dumbass what he'd been looking for. Can you imagine how unhappy he'd have been if the cop had said to him "you're a pain in the ass, get your shit, and get out of here?"

[flvegan]

9. I'm not going near that trainwreck of a thread, but the unlawful detention by the store

employee would be my civil suit. The officer arrested they guy for failure to provide ID (although he specifically, it seems, asked for a license). The shopper made the mistake of leaving his car to call the police. He should've stayed in his car, called the cops and waited for them to arrive, thereby "catching" the store employee in his error. I would never have told the cop about the receipt issue. That's not a police problem, that's a shitty store policy problem.

TBH, the "receipt check" is a scare tactic. Short of patting someone down, I doubt they catch much this way.

[Richardo]

18. You're a voice in the wilderness on that thread, Lynne

...and one of the few sane ones. :thumbsup:

[Throd]

20. I totally agree with you.

I have known this particular type of dickbag in the past. They are always creating some sort of situation to prove how "the man" is out to get them in this fascist dystopia.

[RebelOne]

21. No, you are not crazy. I think that person went a little too far overboard.

I bought a computer at Best Buy 2 weeks ago and I thought nothing of showing my receipt as I exited. No big deal. I mean I was wheeling a huge computer box out of the store.

[Deep13]

23. Well you do have a rabbit with a pancake on its head.

Stores may use reasonable means to protect themselves from shoplifters. I cannot comment on whether or not preventing a vehicle from leaving is reasonable since the case is in progress and I am often in the position of representing that state. I cannot comment on the state of the law concerning the need to produce identification.

[ThomCat]

25. YOu keep quoting him as saying he doesn't want to live his life smoothly.

Is that what you're upset about? That he doesn't want to accomodate authority? That he doesn't want to have to prove his identity upon demand?

I think it's ridiculous and criminal that the police can demand a drivers license for no reason. I think it's ridiculous and criminal that a store can detain anyone without charging that person with theft. Either they have some reason to think he stole something, or they don't. If they don't then they have no business stopping him for any reason at all.

[LynneSin]

52. No one here at DU has read the police report

Are we to assume that every blogger out there is telling the entire story. I mean if he did something embarassing it would be better to omit it from his blog - less we disregard reading the blog all together.

I'm not saying that Police are always right but this person has proclaimed that he wants to be difficult throughout life. Perhaps he was getting more difficult than what he blogged.

[NMDemDist2]

27. i'm getting hammered too

:hi:

[SeattleGirl]

32. Some people must not have ever shopped at Costco.

You always have to show your receipt when leaving the store.

Same thing at Comp USA.

And those stores have been doing that for years and years.

[mike_c]

39. I do most of my shopping at Costco...

...and I agreed to their conditions of membership, which include the door check on the way out. The important point here is that I agreed to surrender my right to deny a search and I did so willingly. But I don't have to. It's my choice.

In this case, the citizen chose not to surrender his rights. That is perfectly legitimate, IMO, and I suspect he will prevail in court, or CC will settle quietly to avoid a civil suit. When business and law enforcement combine to override the rights of citizens, that's fascism.

[skygazer]

42. Costco is a membership store

When you accept membership there, you accept the terms which include the receipt check. Public stores are different. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp.

[SeattleGirl]

51. It's not difficult to grasp, but I'm finding it difficult to understand why

this is such a huge issue. Look, I'm a little late to the game, because I just saw the post in GD, but the only thing the store wanted to do was see the person's receipt, right? If they had demanded to strip search him and everyone else leaving the store, I could see the uproar. And, as I mentioned, Costco is not the only store to ask to see the receipt as you leave. Yes, it's a membership store, but CompUSA, another store that wants to see the receipt when you leave, isn't. And they were asking to see receipts before 9/11.

[Burma Jones]

69. I never had to show a receipt at Comp USA

I've been to two of them, one in Westchester County NY and one in Montgomery County MD, both high income areas....

I haven't shopped at Costco

[SeattleGirl]

76. Interesting.

The CompUSA store around here closed a couple of years ago, but when it was open, they always checked receipts when people left the store. Obviously they don't have a policy that applies to all stores.

[Dukkha]

33. Guitar Center has the same policy

and it's ridiculous not to comply. It's a normal part of their check out procedure. By not complying you are showing just cause of suspicion and they have a right to examine your store bag at that point. I'm not sure but I think they have to wait until your outside their store before they can intervene the shoplifting laws may be different in other states.

[Oeditpus Rex]

34. I realize the Bill of Rights does not technically apply

to such a hallowed institution as Circuit City, but what part of the spirit of

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

do you not understand?

[LynneSin]

50. So I guess there isn't anyone else violating the bill of rights out there

This must be the only thing happening in the world and damnit - DUers need to make this blogger their new Hero.

It's prevention loss - most of the time they never look in the bag. And we are doing a stupid job of ASSUMING the blogger posted the entire incident - has anyone seen the police report?

There are 2 sides to every story and then there is the truth.

[Oeditpus Rex]

53. Okay, I've seen the light

Everybody does it, so it's okay.

:eyes:

[LynneSin]

55. Everyone also assumes the blogger is reporting the entire story

Which is the #1 mistake of this whole incident.

[Oeditpus Rex]

62. Hundreds of blog posts are accepted every day at face value

because people agree with what they say. I see no reason not to believe this one as far as it goes. But, if further evidence comes to light, I'll re-consider my stand accordingly.

[LynneSin]

67. Which is amazingly sad

Because of the widespread use of the blog tool means there are too many trusting people out there that may or may not be taken advantage of by a person who owns these blogs.

Makes me want to start my own and see if I can get this kind of response.

[LynneSin]

81. I have to post a second response

"Hundreds of blog posts are accepted every day at face value because people agree with what they say"

This is damn scary statement. I'm not devaluing the power of the blog but it means that there are alot of vulnerable people out there is this world that could easily be duped simply becaues they believe what the blogger says.

[Oeditpus Rex]

84. Mmhmm — including people talking about 'news' blogs

while decrying the "MSM."

[LynneSin]

87. It's up to the reader to decide

but there is a sense of vulnerability with the blog. To be honest - I read a few blogs and I do read some of the MSM sites too. I read here at DU and then I put careful consideration as to what is reliable and what might be a bit of exaggerated truth.

[redqueen]

41. You're not crazy.

I wonder if this guy is an activist on any issues which actually cause harm. Unlike stores wanting to inspect receipts.

[LydiaJ]

45. Don't let them get to you Lynnne!

You are one of the nicest people I know... Keep your innate sensible bearings, and you'll be ok. :hug:

[derby378]

60. I'm certainly not slamming you, Lynne...

Whether or not the guy was actually a jerk, his Fourth Amendment rights are non-negotiable. Same with his First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, etc.

I can disagree with you on this case, but you're still quite all right in my book. :hug:

[LynneSin]

65. We can always agreee to disagree

I'm just saying that I think there is more to the arrest then what the blogger wrote about. I know police can be asshole - hell I witnessed that at a Rat Dog/Allman Brothers concert. But I also know that the police isn't just going to arrest this person unless he was making some sort of threat to either the police and/or the store manager.

I think blogs are wonderful tools but anyone with a computer and internet connection can start one, which means there are some great blogs with amazing information out there and then there are some people trying to boost readership by stretching the truth (or omitting certain facts).

I don't know which one this blogger is - which is why I think this is a dumb rallying call for DUers.

[krispos42]

68. His complaint was how he was treated by LE after the incident

He has no legal obligation to show either the reciept or the contents of the bag to the security guy. It is entirely voluntary in nature, absent of a shoplifting accusation. If there is a shoplifting accusation, then he's obliged to allow a police officer to investigate the shoplifing accusation. Not the security guard.

Security overstepped its bounds when it prevented him from driving off. That's unlawful restraint, or some such thing.

And the police arrested him illegally, because he is not legally obligated to show a driver's license to an officer unless he's driving. He can't be obstructing the police if he is refusing an illegal demand by the officer.

The fact that it's common practice does not make it legally mandatory, and he was within his rights to refuse the security guard.

[LynneSin]

83. Yes but as I've said many times my complaint is that we assume this is what happened

and that is a frightening thing to me. Not because this particular blogger is some sort of horrible person but the concept that we, as blog readers, are making too many assumptions to think that everything posted in the blog is the absolute 100% truth.

[krispos42]

115. This is the internet. fiction is always an option

I wrote in my Journal back in March about how my boss' nephew was killed in Iraq. Or, how a soldier that I claimed was related to a boss that I claim to have.

I could just some of lightly twisted person desperately seeking attention, and making up stories out of whole cloth.


Perhaps the person blogging will provide scans of the relevent police documents, like they do on TheSmokingGun.com

For what it's worth, here's a picture of a man that I claim is my boss, who I claim has a nephew that died in Iraq. He's the on on the left wearing that super-sexy leopard-print rag as an apron.

[LynneSin]

128. As I've said it's up to the reader to read the blog and make a decision

I'm sorry to hear about your boss's loss.

I'm not saying that all blogs are suspect just saying that when reading we all have to realize that many of these blogs are posted by individuals telling their side of the story.

[IndianaJones]

70. Not crazy. Sheep maybe, but not crazy. nt.

[MissMillie]

71. I'm w/ you on this

I get the whole idea behind the 4th amendment, but I'm not sure that being in a Circuit City that anyone can have any legal "expectation of privacy"--at least no more so than when they're boarding a plane.

[SeattleGirl]

79. Interesting that you bring up the plane boarding thing. I was just

wondering if this guy ever flies, and if so, does he refuse to go through the metal detector? Personally, I think having to practically disrobe before boarding a plane is a far more offensive thing than having someone look at my receipt before leaving a store.

[MissMillie]

124. Expectation of Privacy

I don't fly very often.... maybe twice in the last 7 years.... and I have yet to have to remove my shoes or anything close to it.

But I believe there is such a thing as a legal "expectation of privacy" that comes into play when the legality of a search is being questioned.

I remember that there was a case a while back about a phone conversation that took place on a cordless phone. Apparently the conversation had somehow been intercepted and was being used in court and it was ruled that because the call was not on a land-line, there was no expectation of privacy... that cordless or cell phones were not considered "secure" and therefore conversations on such devices were fair game in court.

(this was quite a while ago... I don't know if there is recent law that trumps this precedent)

[SeattleGirl]

129. You've never had to take your shoes off?

When you fly, what airport do you leave from? I fly out of SeaTac in Seattle, and ever since the shoe bomb guy, we have to take our shoes off.

[MissMillie]

130. TF Green in Providence

some people have to take their shoes off... I think it's a random thing.

[SeattleGirl]

132. It's mandatory here.

Is your airport very big? I wonder if the size of the airport makes a difference on whether random people have to take their shoes off, or if everyone does.

[MissMillie]

142. TF Green is pretty small

but I flew out of Balt/Wash and Tampa and never had to take my shoes off there either.

[meegbear]

85. The guy's a dick - you are in the right

QED

[LynneSin]

89. I believe someone was a dick in this incident

I just don't have enough information to decide. But the whole receipt thing has been going well over a decade so I'm not sure why it was such an inconvience to flash a receipt.

[scarpa43]

86. Sounds like a jerk to me

I hate people that knowingly and purposely make themselves a "victim" so that they can be a martyr.

He knew before he went in that store that his bag would be looked at and made the decision to cause a big scene so that he would have a reason to be hassled by "the man".

I don't buy the bit about the store treating customers like thieves as being unreasonable, that is the reason they have loss prevention people, they are supposed to be suspicious of everyone.

Also, don't be upset when you get arrested for wasting a cops time so you can bitch about somebody doing their job.

And how about his family? The kids in the car crying, the uncle (?) having to put up bail and take time out of their lives because you don't want to show a reciept?

To me that is like bitching about getting ID'ed when I am 35 years old. Everytime I buy a beer should I just state my name and birthday and force the bartender to take my word for it?

Fuck this guy and anyone who looks like him.

[NewJeffCT]

109. I don't know if the guy intended to be a martyr

he said he had been in Circuit City, Best Buys and similar before, so he obviously knew the policy.

However, did he attempt similar in his local Circuit City? If so, did his local Circuit City give him a problem as well? If he had done similar at his local Circuit City in the past and had not had a problem, I think it would be reasonable for him to expect similar treatment at this Circuit City as well.

It doesn't sound like he went in planning to cause an incident - he thought he was going to run in and grab something for his sister's birthday. If he really wanted to be a martyr, why bring his family along? He could have gone back later on his own, or had one friend or relative drive him over.

[scarpa43]

143. I just thought of a different angle

Who says that the store employee was concerned about the customer stealing?

He could very well have been concerned about how honest the cashier was. When I was young one of my friends worked at a retail store and when he worked a register we would go to him with a bunch of merchandise and only pay for one of the items while he put 20 extra items in the bag.

Maybe the store employee was suspicious of the cashier this guy happened to go to and wanted to be sure they were not cheating the store.

In that situation the store employee could be looking at this guy in the car as possible proof that his employee was up to no good and could not get cooperation.

Still don't like this guy.

[NewJeffCT]

145. If they suspected a cashier of stealing

they should probably have some video tape of them bagging items.

I'm sure that if they signed up to work at a corporation like Circuit City, they probably have some fine print document somewhere that says the employer has the right to monitor their employees.

[HEyHEY]

119. I love how he calls the cops to help, then starts being a dick to them

[SacredCow]

92. It's 2 separate issues, as far as I can tell....

On the showing of your receipt as you walk out the door: I agree with the guy in theory- it irks me to be guilty until proven innocent, but it's certainly not worth causing a scene. I show my receipt and go on my merry way. I think that the Circuit City manager was way out of line detaining the fella since there was no reason to believe that he stole anything.

On the issue of showing your driver's license (though you weren't driving): I had a police officer tell me once that there actually was a law (local? federal? I don't know) saying that adult citizens were required to carry ID with them at all times. My gut tells me that it's BS, but then again....

I don't think there's much question that the guy was looking to be a martyr for this particular cause. I give him props for sticking to his convictions, but I think he could have handled the situation without getting arrested.

[LynneSin]

100. great post - I truly agree

And to be honest - for all I know this guy has a point. But I'd rather hear both sides before I decide then to create a rallying cry over a 1-sided incident

[HEyHEY]

105. Up here you don't LEGALLY have to have ID

But if a cop asks you to produce some and you don't have any or won't produce it... he can arrest you under suspicsion and take you to the cop shop and hold you until they find out who you are. It just makes sense. Otherwise there'd be a shitload of criminals getting away with shit because they refuse to show ID.

[SacredCow]

121. Perhaps that's the way it is here.....

I used to commute solely by bicycle, and I always wondered what would happen if I got stopped. I've heard tale of infractions committed on a bicycle going on your driving record if you present your license. But are you required to present a license on a bicycle? I would logically conclude not, but if I were threatened with the possibility of arrest I'd probably comply.

Fortunately, I was never in this situation.

[HEyHEY]

101. The guy brought it on himself

I agree with you, Lynne. He made a huge issue out of a minor one. I don't mean the receipt so much as refusing to show the cop Identification. If you know you did nothing wrong why the fuck would you go making things worse just on principle... which by the way he seems to have been wrong on anyway. Word to the wise, if you're gonna fight for your rights.... KNOW WHAT THEY FUCKING ARE!

[texas1928]

116. Well the cop asked for his driver's license.

He should have asked for Identification. The guy can sit there and say all he has to say is his name and address, but he could have said George Bush from 1000 pennsylvania ave. It is a name and address, true, but it is false. They ask for a driver's license because that is the most common form of identification. Hell when I called the police to report that the idiot next door to us was threatening me and my wife, she asked for my driver's license.

The searching the bag thing is kind of dumb. When I worked in retail, the only time we asked to see a receipt is if they paid back at the camera boat or jewelry counter. If they went through the front lanes we did not ask to see the receipt. And the person who checks them out, stapled the bag closed with the receipt around the outside of the bag. The customer shows us the receipt and is on their merry way.

[flvegan]

118. This Righi blogger seems to like pushing security to make a point:

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2005/06/11/my-run-in-with-ppg-security/

Can't say that I disagree with some of what he says, it just seems like this is kinda his MO.

[johnnie]

120. The guy is a schmuck

I bet that there is a sign on the door or as you walk in that states they are allowed to go through your bag or something like that. This blogger is just being an idiot and needs to put his energy somewhere else besides against the poor guy making 6 bucks an hour at Circuit City.

[huskerlaw]

123. You're not crazy.

I can't say the same for some other people, however.

[Debi]

127. I'm with you on this one Lynne

I don't want to hear that I am anti-civil rights or that I'm just a sheep, but if that's what I am for calling this guy an asshole, so be it.

Why, if he already knew this was going to happen, did he do it in front of his entire family on a special day? Why, if he was primed for this battle to protect his civil liberties, didn't he plan this out w/assistance from the ACLU or his local civil rights group (rather than making his sister cry on he birthday, spoiling a family reunion and forcing his dad to shell out $300.00 for bail)?

Why, if he disagreed with the corporate policies of Circuit City, did he choose to shop there? Unless he wanted what happened to happen HOW it happened so he could cry VICTIM!!!

Nope, I won't be contributing to this asshole's defense fund.

[LynneSin]

133. Just so you know I've asked the moderators to lock this thread

I really wasn't bringing this debate into lounge. I just figured others would probably agree with me and have a good laugh.

Of course the mods may decide to not lock and that is their choice. As far as I'm concerned I'm done with this matter. I'm sure there are better things to get my bowels in an uproar over!

[grace0418]

136. You're not crazy but he's not an idiot.

You just disagree with his tactics. Doesn't make him an idiot though.

[texas1928]

138. Also.

If I had been his dad, I would have left his dumbass in jail. Having to cough up 300 bucks so this guy could play freedom fighter on the web. BULLSHIT

[Debi]

140. And THAT is one of the reasons I adore you Tex

RIGHT and to the point! :loveya:

[texas1928]

141. If it had been me doing that...

My dad would have gotten out of the car and field goal kicked my ass across the parking lot.

[LibertyLover]

144. I read that thread and felt like I needed a shower afterwards

My husband and I shop at Best Buy rather than Circuit City for our electronics, primarily because BB has a better selection and prices than CC, but BB does the receipt thing too. They have since the store opened, way prior to 9/11. It doesn't bother me. They are reasonably selective - i.e. have a small bag and you will generally not get asked to produce the receipt, although I generally just carry it in my hand until I exit the store, or if it's fairly slow and the guys at the front have been watching you check out. Leave with large boxes on a cart or hand truck and they will ask for the receipt. Maybe I'm just not outraged enough, but to be honest - it doesn't bother me that they are checking to make sure you paid for items. Annoying on occasion but not an outrage.

Oh, yeah, you're not crazy. :evilgrin: