Why do so many liberals/progressives take the side of corporations against a private citizen?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

This is in response to the "Arrested at Circuit City" thread.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the number of liberal/progressive folks that are taking the side of both Circuit City and the police in this matter.

If you have paid for an item the store has no right to detain you in any way, and in fact they face a massive lawsuit if they do so.

The fact of the matter is that the store employee who blocked the citizen's attempt to leave the parking lot was the one who was violating the law, not the customer who had paid for his purchase.

Just because they get away with these Gestapo tactics every day doesn't make it right.

Stand up for what rights you still have or they will soon be gone.

[AX10]

1. We have many around here who are delusional and all too...

willing to submit to authority. This behavior is to be expected at FreeRepublic, but at DU? :wtf:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

4. I stopped showing my receipts quite a while ago..

When I learned there was no legal requirement to do so.

I'm hoping that someone detains me because I'm going to sue the crap out of them and I could use the money.

I won't stop when told and if they try to block my exit in any way I'm going to keep moving and let them try to force me. There are enough security cameras around these days that the entire incident almost certainly will be recorded.

[redqueen]

5. Hah... nothing is black and white.

I think the reason nobody gets all worked up about it is they don't consider it to be such a huge deal to show a receipt.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

8. Some things are indeed black and white.

It's not "nobody" because I'm aware of quite a few people who feel the same way I do.

In fact at least a couple of people on this thread have already agreed with me.

[redqueen]

11. Sorry... MOST people don't get worked up.

Better?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

51. So what?

MOST people don't care that Bush is ruining the damn country..

[redqueen]

55. ...

:rofl:

I know you don't mean to be funny...

but first the refusal to show a receipt is compared to the fight against racism

and now it's compared to the evil that is DC

... that's just... just... *sigh*

[The Vinyl Ripper]

63. Why do you take the side of the corporations?

Can you answer that question?

[redqueen]

65. See my response in post #58.

I thought you weren't that passionate about this.

[John Q. Citizen]

75. It's compared to the fight for our rights, nothing more. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why

worry about being searched, having your phone tapped, or allowing the guy at the door to see YOUR receipt and look through YOUR bags.

I mean, it's a small price to pay for security in the war against shoplifters, after all.

Right?

[redqueen]

77. I also will not compare showing a receipt to having my fucking phone tapped.

for the love of god and all that's holy...

[John Q. Citizen]

112. It was a reciept, and his bags searched. It's not always the details but the

principle.

If thay can search your bag, then can they have a look in your purse, too, just to make sure you didn't stick a CD in there?

[redqueen]

114. You mean the way they do at ball parks?

I'M GONNA SUE!

I'M GONNA CALL THE COPS AND SUE!

:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

133. You don't have the guts.

[redqueen]

136. ROFL!

:rofl:

[Left Is Write]

152. Different principle.

You can refuse to have your bags searched at the ball park, and they can then refuse to allow to you enter the facility.

You can refuse to have your bags searched upon leaving a retail store, and they CANNOT refuse to allow you to leave.

[redqueen]

153. I've said elsehwere in the clusterfuck

that the store employee was out of line.

I'm not sure it's true though. Refusal to comply with a store policy that is constitutional by the ACLU's standards might hold up in court as reasonable cause for the store owner to believe a theft is taking place.

[Left Is Write]

162. I haven't read every post.

Whether it holds up or not, it's still a different principle from being refused entry to a ballpark or stadium.

[redqueen]

165. I know, I'm just saying that I've said it elsewhere.

It's a different principle, yes.

But to some people on this thread this guy is the new Rosa Parks.

So as long as we were making asinine analogies... :)

[mhatrw]

197. So the refusal of an innocent person to stand in another line to prove

his or her innocence is reasonable grounds to assume guilt?

How do you feel about people who refuse to have their phones tapped again?

[redqueen]

199. See post 198. n/t

[mhatrw]

195. Why not? What's the difference? You are being presumed guilty until

you prove your innocence both times. You are having your privacy invaded in order to prove your innocence both times. What is the difference?

[redqueen]

196. Precedent.

That, and logic.

[mhatrw]

200. That's a cop out.

What precedent? What logic?

[redqueen]

201. What precedent?

Seriously? They've been doing it for YEARS. Decades, even, possibly.

Has the government been given a green light to spy on citizens for years?

See where I'm going with this? That logic.

[mhatrw]

228. Slavery went on for thousands of years.

I'm still waiting for that logic to appear.

[redqueen]

229. Oh for fuck's sake.

:nuke:

[mhatrw]

236. More flawless logic. n/t

[redqueen]

239. More meaningless bullshit. n/t

LAST WORD!

:eyes: :puke:

[LanternWaste]

351. Red, you are no more that sub-subservient lackey of authority...

Okay... we've gotten to this point: Showing a receipt is tantamount to endorsing slavery; and refusing to show that same receipt puts you in league with Rosa Parks, Gandhi, and Jesus.

Give it till Monday-- by then, any store clerk who offers you a receipt will be painted as Hitler, and shopping in said store will be akin to being an S.S. guard at Auschwitz.

A week from Monday, merely mentioning the phrase, "May I see your receipt?" will be part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy, and illustrate for all to see that you are no more than a sub-subservient lackey of authority who sides with corporations because you hate America and prefer Cherry over Mom's Apple Pie.

In a month, keyboard commando's all over America will be tracking anyone who buys anything from anywhere, branding them as counterrevolutionaries who hate the Bill of Rights and defecates on boy Scouts.

And finally, in a year, the guy who started all this will be buying a computer game at circuit city, no one here will remember his name, and the Righteous-Rage-of-the-Month will have moved on to something much more substantial-- the inherent misogyny of the game Pong.


Red-- it's gonna be a long year... :patriot:

[mhatrw]

375. Slippery slope fallacy, anyone?

I love how you corporate apologists always need to have it both ways:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1746129&mesg_id=1749096

[redqueen]

382. Hehehe...

Thank you so much for that post! :D

[proud2BlibKansan]

116. Most people are watching American Idol

[redqueen]

122. So?

Talk to LynneSinn about that... she agrees with you that they're all idiots.

[Divine Discontent]

394. you mean Idol Replay

since Idol doesn't start for another few months... lol sorry, please don't hurt me.

[Warren DeMontague]

321. Here's the logic: You say "showing your reciept is a small inconvenience"- but SOME MIGHT SAY that

getting your head chopped off by a rusty axe is, likewise, just a small inconvenience.

So--- why do you defend the chopping off of heads with rusty axes? What kind of a person are you???

;)

[ananda]

98. I never thought much about it.

I felt a bit annoyed at having to stop at the door,
but I just figured that the store felt it needed to
do that to prevent shoplifting.

I hope I'm not getting too inured or comfortable
with fascism. Geez.

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. I consider the US Constitution and the 4th amendment

a huge deal

If you are willing to surrender your rights, that is your deal...

But I have gone so far as to at times carry a pocket Constitution and QUOTE by rote, the 4rth amendment

Now Cosco, you surrender your rights NOT to show your receipt, that is part of the CONTRACT you sign

Circuit City and Fryies and the rest, have absolutely no legal right

If you want to surrender your rights, go right ahead...

I wont

[redqueen]

173. Are you positive about that?

Another poster in this thread claims the ACLU has come down on the store-owners' side on this.

Are you positive that they can't post store policy, and expect to have it followed?

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. If they forcilbly search you and you did not

shop lift and worst they detained you... they are liable

It is simple as that

Cops are allowed to make mistakes

Retailers are not

Forcibly searching you is a violation of your rights and presumption of guilt for SOMETHING

Look I refuse to show them recepts, bags anything, except where I EXPRESSELY agreed to it, by signing a contract (COSTCO)

Use it or surrender it

But this is the same slipery slope used for warrantless wiretapping et al

[redqueen]

192. Sorry but mom & pop shopkeepers do it frequently.

So absent a citation, I'm going to assume it's not settled either way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. So if people jump off the brooklin bridge you are willing to

follow?

Damn what an attitude

Don't complain then when they tap your phones... part of the same slippery slope, and what do I have to hide?

[redqueen]

205. That's logic!

:rofl:

No, it's not cause anyone jumped off a bridge. It's PRECEDENT.

I WILL complain when they illegally tap phones (oh no wait it's not illegal anymore THANKS, NANCY!) because THERE IS NO PRECEDENT.

Unbelievable, this place.

[mhatrw]

237. But in ten years it will be fine. Right?

{/redqueen logic}

[redqueen]

241. It's fine now, thanks to Nancy and her co-horts.

{idiotic smartassery not indulged in}

[harun]

202. Why don't you just not shop at those stores? (n/t)

[WinkyDink]

216. Yeah, and why not choose another fountain, lunch counter, and bus line, too?

[harun]

247. Are you trying to compare racial discrimination to showing

a store receipt?

[nadinbrzezinski]

253. I'm sure people back then didn't see a problem either

look you may not understand why choosing to NOT comply is important

Personally I am astounded that this even has to be explained

But oh well... I guess this country is going down a road that will astound you too

[harun]

273. I understand why but I don't understand the prioritization of this

being even an issue. There are hundreds of other issues way more obvious and more dangerous to people. Heck maybe thousands.

I guess if you think that is where you need to take your stand more power to you. I just put that rather low on my list.

Nobody NEEDS the junk in those stores anyway. If people are so much against corporate power don't buy that junk. It doesn't clothe you, feed you, or provide you shelter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

290. Every time there has been a battle

that defines or redefines rights, somebody has said, there are so many other issues that are far more important

For me... we are moving ever more closely to a police state

And these unimportant matters are a way to accostume a society to being observed and pried into regularly

I don't know how else to explain it

Yes the war is important, but stopping this descent into a surveillance society is just as important

And yes, I can chew gum and walk at the same time

[LanternWaste]

353. woke up this morning thinking that I did indeed want to surrender

I actually woke up this morning thinking that I did indeed want to surrender at least one of my rights. I'm still figuring out which one to give up. I figure it's a lot like Lent, right?

But you decided it for me-- it'll be my fourth amendment ('cause I love the way you use the word 'rote', well, that and I got bubble gum on that section of my Binford 2500 Pocket Constitution and Pea Shooter Combo).

I think I'll go to the Post Office tonight (is that where we go to give up our rights?) and say loudly and proudly, "Show me your receipts!"


:crazy:

[mhatrw]

193. It might not be a huge deal, but it is a slippery slope.

You patiently stand in line to buy a product. You pay the store's price. You do nothing suspicious whatsoever. Then, minutes later, somebody tries to force you to wait in another line to prove you are not stealing. Why are you presumed guilty until you prove your innocence?

Is it a "big deal" to piss in a cup? To give up a DNA sample? To have someone listening to your phone calls and reading your emails? To get stopped and have your car searched at random security check points just because you drove down the wrong street?

[redqueen]

198. It's store policy.

You shop there, you agree to the policy.

Don't like the policy? Don't shop there.

Simple.

This does in no way compare to us losing ACTUAL rights, that NO ONE agreed to give up. Well, no one besides NANCY FUCKING PELOSI and the fuckers who voted for bush's bill once the fucking backstabber put it on the floor.

[mhatrw]

207. What? I never signed anything agreeing to this store policy.

I never saw a sign posted saying, "Don't walk through this door if you don't agree to be searched on the way out."

If you want to agree to give up your rights, that's your business. But you are WAY out of line if you think I ever agreed to give up mine.

Republicans constantly use the exact same reasoning you are using to defend all of Bush's warrantless excesses. IMHO, you have simply been inured to being a cooperative corporate sheep, like 98% of the US population. If even a significant fraction of us actually stood up for our rights, corporations would be forced to abandon their growing litany of ridiculous guilty-until-proven-innocent policies.

[redqueen]

208. As long as it's posted, you don't have to sign anything. n/t

*sigh*

[mhatrw]

231. Posted where?

I've never seen a sign warning, "If you walk in here, you are subject to search on exit." Where have you seen such signs?

[redqueen]

232. Look closer. I'm done with this fucking insane bullshit.

Have a wonderful day.

[mhatrw]

235. Such language could be taken as a sign of violent tendencies.

And DU has a clearly posted a policy encouraging civility. Could I check your hard drive please, ma'am?

[redqueen]

240. You're a really nice and reasonable person.

I really like you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

248. No. It's symptomatic of an increasingly ambient evil of far greater

significance than the 'take it or leave it, shop elsewhere' level of thinking you're pushing.

A judge here in the UK (actually of a particularly despotic disposition as it happens) has suggested that everyone, including visitors to the UK should allow DNA samples to be taken from them, and try as I might, I could not find a single reason why this should not be done, in view of the balance of the greatly enhanced crime detection and law enforcement in our increasingly criminal society, with any drawback.

However, in the light of the growing Big Brother ethos of the country under Blair, its political, and consequently immeasurably more significant dimension is clearly another matter all together. Blair wanted everyone, not only to have an identity card, but to pay a relatively large amount of money for the privilege - on pain of not being able to obtain a passport. But what next. A driving licence before you can vote, as apparently obtains in some of the Southern States? Any means of personal identification, mere checking in general, for that matter, can quickly become a means of harrasment and intimidation by a malignly disposed officialdom.


Do you remember how African American women were routinely, publicly humiliated by the weenies of your Customs Service at airports in the US, even sometimes to the extent of having to submit to a strip search? Complaining to the management was a waste of time. They were on on it. Some probably daren't break ranks.

The main problems relating to accountability in both our countries are not with the general public, but with officialdom and who those manipulate the sytem by their status and networking power. Officialdom in the UK is nowhere near as bad, I believe, generally at least, but our corrupt far right-wing, corporatist rulers and their media enablers have been leading us all on the conveyor belt to economic ruin and imperial wars.

As a DUer, you should have a better pespective on the 'big picture'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

254. BINGO!!!!!!!

It is the surveillance\police state that has been encroaching ever so slowly

It is helped by a lack of understanding and basically a... but I feel safe mentality

Many don't see this as part of that encroachment... oh well

By the way, both nations are going towards a very dark future

[Joe Chi Minh]

257. It's the normalization and the insidiousness of the process that's so scary;

particularly, when you see someone you'd assumed to be politically 'savvy' has been so readily sucked in by it all without even realising it. I don't think the vinyl ripper was bothered about his shopping options being circumscribed.

What I'd meant to say about that judge was that I'd read he was involved in some para or quasi totalitarian business in another connection.

[nadinbrzezinski]

288. Well the problem is that Muricans still believe

that it couldn't happen here, and it is... incrementally

[Joe Chi Minh]

387. I once read a passage by Sartre about a certain mentality, whereby

a certain type of individual will seek a job which gives him far too much authority. They are really hooked on having power over others. Of course, such people tend to gravitate towards the police, prison service, etc. Not, of course, that they don't also have many good people.

I got the idea some time ago, though, that they were somewhat more than well-represented in the US, in such services, and certainly the last 7 years won't have much to deter those types. The far right wing, as ever, tends to bring out the worst in those it can reach.

[conscious evolution]

296. Its called conditioning

Google that word sometime.

[eagler]

383. DU has been totally infiltrated - so that requires that a little

discernment to see through the muck.

[Donkeykick]

2. One Word!

Lawsuit!

[redqueen]

3. What?

LOTS of stores do this. You don't like it? Don't shop there.

I would think the store owners are well within their rights to check packages against receipts.

Please provide some citation to back up your assertion that the stores are violating the law by doing so.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

6. No..

It's impossible to prove a negative.

You provide a citation that they can..

[redqueen]

7. They do it.

Since you're so passionate about this issue, perhaps you know if it's already been challenged in court?


Also, WHY are you so passionate about this issue?

[Zodiak]

13. My guess is:

Because 20 years ago we did not have to put up with incessant encroachments to our liberty and privacy for the sake of shaving a few bucks off of operating costs.

It is shameful how people are treated nowadays...by the police, by corporations, by the government, etc.

Those who would like to return to those days or those who feel they never gave permission for this ridiculousness are the ones who will be the most passionate.

Being a social libertarian, I can definitely say that I agree with this gentleman who refused to show his receipt. His actions only seems stupid because millions and millions of people before him turned over their privacy and liberties to those "private entities" without batting an eyelash.

An anomaly, yes, but the man brings up a very good point.

[redqueen]

14. You consider showing a receipt to be an encroachment on your liberty?

I don't. I consider it an entirely reasonable business practice.

I also don't see the 'very good point' you're referring to.

[Goblinmonger]

29. How about being unlawfully detained

because you didn't show the receipt? With no reaonsable suspicision of shoplifting? (remember, the guy said that the manager could accuse him of shoplifting and call the cops and the manager refused which seems to indicate he didn't think the guy was shoplifting) Is that reasonable?

[redqueen]

33. No, the whole thing is fucking stupid. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

38. OK

I'm sure if you are every falsely imprisoned by another citizen, you won't be bitching about it. Whatever.

[redqueen]

40. Yes, whatever.

Thanks. :)

[Zodiak]

31. Submitting to a physical search from a private entity

in order to leave the premesis is a violation of rights. He was detained by the manager without cause, which is against the law. Showing the receipt is not an encroachment of liberty, but being forced to under the penalty of detainment is. People are free to move about last I checked, and Circuit City is in no position to get in the way of that unless they have PROOF of theft. They didn't.

The cops didn't have the right to arrest him for not showing his lisence either.

He is showing how refusing to comply with an arbitrarily written policy (because store policy is not law) can turn into an authoritarian nightmare, even if you have essentially done nothing wrong other than object to their policy and refuse to comply. That's the point, among others.

And no, I do not consider forcing physical searches for permission to egress to be a reasonable business practice. Yes, it is common, but it is not reasonable.

But then again I am not passionate enough to write more on the topic. Certainly not twenty posts spread over both threads.

[robinlynne]

137. If you are white.

[redqueen]

138. As if other people matter?

*sigh*

[robinlynne]

139. Thank goodness for your answers redqueen, cause I wouldn't have the patience....

[redqueen]

143. Aw, thank you.

:hi:

[Zodiak]

151. I don't get it, please clarify

If you are white, you are passionate about civil liberties?

20 years ago only white people had to not deal with daily encroachments to their civil liberties for the sake of shaving a few bucks off of operating cost?

This guy has a good point....only if you are white?

I do not get the context of your statement, "only if you are white"... Especially since race was never part of this discussion.

[redqueen]

167. "20 years ago we did not have to put up with incessant encroachments to our liberty and privacy "

Minorities have had to put up with incessant shit for... well since forever.

And it's still the case today.

Katrina, anyone?

[Zodiak]

177. "...for the sake of shaving a few bucks off of operating costs."

please quote me with full context.

Katrina was a different ball of wax and also horribly egregious (but not a corporate entity). It also underscores what I am saying....people are being treated worse than they were...they have less liberties than before, and it just isn't phone tapping. It now permeates every aspect of our lives to the point where we cannot buy a CD without being searched under threat of "corporate arrest".

But thanks for clarifying someone else's non-sequitir argument.

[redqueen]

178. Not a corporate entity?

Blackwater? Other no-bid recipients?

Your welcome for the explanation. :)

[The Vinyl Ripper]

47. Because I don't like being bullied by corporations..

[Sherman A1]

10. 34 years in Retail

That is my citation.

[redqueen]

12. And what are you citing? n/t

[LanternWaste]

373. It's impossible to prove that a store asking for receipts is illegal?

It's impossible to prove that a store asking for receipts is illegal?

Illustrating that a store asking for a receipt is illegal is a negative?

Wow... I need to go back to school. :eyes:

[musette_sf]

18. i don't have the citation

but the way i understand it is, if you are shopping at a "membership" store (e.g., Costco), they are within their rights to request to view your receipt when you leave. you made an agreement to join the store, be a member, and follow their rules.

however, if you are shopping at, let's say, Fry's Electronics, you have absolutely no legal obligation to respond to requests to view your receipt. it's a store that is open to the public. the only rule is i buy, i pay, the end.

i NEVER show my receipt at the door except at Costco. if the door thugs at Fry's ever try to give me a hassle, i will promptly return everything i bought and go elsewhere, where they won't overreach their rights and try to treat me like a criminal. they've never given me a hassle yet, but believe me, if it ever happened, they can take back the hundreds of dollars of stuff they just sold me, and i'll be a pain about it too.

[redqueen]

22. 'pick your battles'

this is one i won't be picking

geezaloo

[musette_sf]

28. picking my battles:

i won't battle with some idiot door thug with a police state mindset in a store that supposedly is open to the public. i'll shop elsewhere.

[redqueen]

30. You wouldn't call the cops? Like this guy did? n/t

[musette_sf]

42. if it got to that point

in a store that is supposedly open to the public, i.e., demanding to see my bag and its contents, following me out to my car, then demanding to see ID - yeah, i'd call the cops. one of their jobs is to protect me from unwarranted harassment in public places.

[tridim]

106. It's not like Costco actually checks everything in your cart anyway..

Most of the time the person scans your cart for about 2 seconds and marks your receipt.

Seems like kind of a waste of human resources.

I bet the next move is to use RFID to scan your items as you leave. Of course that begs the question, what happens if you bring in merchandise you purchased elsewhere?

[MadHound]

35. Actually in my state, the business owner can't legally detain you

Whether or not they're checking your bag. There has to be a suspicion, bordering on near certainty, that you shoplifted before an owner can detain you. They certainly can't detain you for refusing to show a receipt. The sad thing is many stores post this as a "policy", and the sheeple believe that it is the law and quietly comply. I refuse to be a sheep.

[redqueen]

45. Is refusal to show a receipt not enough to cause a store manager to suspect

that you're 'almost certainly' shoplifting?

:shrug:

It's not black and white. Very little, if anything, is.

[MadHound]

49. If you've set a person up front to check everybody's receipt, yes, in our state it is. n/t

Though like I said, the sheeple tend to go along with it.

[redqueen]

52. Stop fucking calling me a 'sheeple' please.

:hi:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

56. If the shoe fits..

Why don't you care that the corporations are violating your rights?

Even if it is a tiny violation, it is nonetheless a violation.

Why are you taking the side of the corporations?

[redqueen]

58. I'm not taking their side!

If you don't want to show a receipt, and that's store policy, then don't shop there... it's that simple.

This is NOT a civil rights issue.

No amoung of hand-wringing will convince me it is.

That said, the store employee WAS out of line... so was the cop. However this guy was looking for a fight, and he got one... over store receipts.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

67. Yes you are taking their side..

They have no legal right to do what they do..

Why do you defend corporations that are breaking the law?

[redqueen]

69. Reading comprehension.

I'm not defending the corporation.

:rofl:

Have a nice day!

[nadinbrzezinski]

304. They have a right to ask

you have a right to say no

If they forcibly search they have crossed a line... and that is the whole fucking point

You are defending them, and you don't even realize it

[John Q. Citizen]

109. Rosa was looking for a fight and she got one too. Over which damn seat she sat in.

She should have just taken a cab.....if she didn't like the bus companies policies....

If we take our rights for granted, we will surely lose them.

The guy was looking for a fight, over his rights not to be searched like he was some kind of criminal.

I doubt I would do it. But I'm glad for these "unreasonable people" who do.

[redqueen]

117. Rosa was discriminated on BASED ON HER RACE.

This asshole was asked to do the SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Fucking hell.

I'm really done with this fucking idiocy now.

[Usrename]

278. Your whole premise is wrong.

You don't surrender your rights when you patronize a certain store.

Your point of view would be accurate at a Sam's Club or some other membership organization.

[MadHound]

105. If you go back and reread my posts, you'll see that I'm not calling you a sheeple

I am referring to the generic population. Sorry if I offended
Peace:hi:

[redqueen]

107. Well, since I'm someone who dosen't mind the whole receipt-showing business...

you were calling me one, too.

Peace
:hi:

[earthside]

131. Property Rights, Here.

In a store open to the general public, it seems to me that a citizen's property rights should also apply.

After a legitimate transaction takes place, at the cash register, the item bought is the sole property of the purchaser ... the store has willingly given up all claims to the item.

So, what possible right could the store have to ask for proof of purchase for something that YOU own? Think about it this way, does the store have a right to inventory what you have in your pockets or purse when you come INTO the store? Most folks would say 'no' because they own their own handkerchief ... well, once you've made the purchase, you own the product, it is too late for the store.

The responsibility for guarding against shoplifting should be before a citizen engages in the transaction, or if the store has a compelling belief that a SPECIFIC individual is stealing.

What gets me is the small, incremental behaviors from government and corporations that get too many people used to the idea that we all have to do what we are told by 'authority'.

Those people who are backing Circuit City seem to me to be missing the bigger picture ... it is that everywhere we go, everything we do since the advent of the Bush regime has attached to it some infringement on our rights and personal dignity.

Read your emails, put RFID chips in the packaging, tap your telephone, make you take off your shoes at the airport, carry your driver's license everywhere, pay a tax on everything and if you don't go to jail ... just start thinking about how controlled you are in almost everything you do by some corporate or government entity.

When is enough, enough?

[redqueen]

170. If I go into the store knowing that's their policy, then yeah, they have that right.

I find the arguments that this receipt-showing business is the slippery slope leading to loss of REAL rights fucking laughable.

[Usrename]

279. You are proof of the slippery-slope.

You don't even understand, or care, whose rights were violated in this altercation, or why it is so.

You have already begun a huge slip down the slope, especially when you counsel others not to give a shit about it.

There couldn't be a worse example of how to behave in the defense of the bill of rights.

[goodhue]

134. Indeed

It is common practice and no violation of law. Detaining without probable cause is different issue. Asking for receipt is not detaining. Refusal to provide receipt might provide reasonable suspicion for detention depending on facts. I fail to see a violation of civil rights absent discriminatory treatment based on race or ethnicity. The suggestion that store has no legal right to ask for receipts is simply wrong.

[redqueen]

172. EXACTLY!

I don't see how people can view his refusal to comply with ESTABLISHED and WELL-KNOWN store policy could be viewed in any other way than an attempt to cover up a crime.

(I capitalized ESTABLISHED and WELL-KNOWN in the hopes that another 'then you must want the government to spy on you!' bullshit argument wouldn't pop up. Ugh!)

[mhatrw]

210. The store can clearly ask. What can they do when I politiely decline their request?

[Demit]

9. Because it was a stupid small thing. The guy made a mountain out of a molehill.

[Zodiak]

15. The only problem with a "stupid, small thing"

is that his rights were violated with the detainmnt by the manager and the arrest. You may think it small, but numerous small usurpations of liberty are part and parcel to authoritarian control structures and certainly part of conditioning for greater usurpations.

Read the words of our founding fathers and some of the commentaries on fascism, communism, etc. in the last century (especially Orwell) to see that this is indeed true. Liberty is not taken away all at once...it is done by small, seemingly meaningless increments.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Being falsly imprisoned is such a small stupid thing.

:eyes:

[Demit]

20. No, no. He was not imprisoned for refusing to show his receipt. Go back & read his story.

[Goblinmonger]

24. What was he imprisioned for then?

I am talking about the detention by the store manager. That was false imprisonment. They had no right to detain him. The cop was just a prick.

[Usrename]

276. When the store security refused to allow him to leave..

that was the illegal imprisonment.

If they detained him without any legal justification, that's what is generally reffered to as false imprisonment or even kidnapping.

[Hydra]

17. So is "Showing your papers"

It's a little thing to show an ID and explain your presence to a LEO, but that is the mark of a despotic gov't if the person wasn't doing anything overtly illegal.

Are you ok that Corps have more rights and privilages than people? If so, you must love the trend here in America. Some of us don't.

Oh, and checking receipts? I doubt they catch 1% of the people who are stealing. Same with the expanded police powers. More power for things that aren't being fixed?

[angstlessk]

211. Eggzactly, do we get to arrest Wal Mart for overcharging when they have

knowlingly set their computers to overcharge on items? It is that same thing as putting their hands in our pockets and stealing our money. they do it time and time again cause they have no punishment, we just have to spend OUR PRECIOUS TIME standing in line in customer service to PROVE they were wrong. THAT IS NOT JUSTICE...CORPORATIONS INDEED HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN CONSUMERS (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CITIZENS)!

[LSK]

19. so did someone sitting in the front of a bus 50 some years ago

Some might have said that was making a mountain out of a molehill back then.

[Demit]

26. You are very silly to think that's an appropriate analogy.

[LSK]

34. so I am required to carry my license everywhere I go now???

Even if I am just TAKING A WALK?

:shrug:

[Demit]

44. No. Wow. And the guy in the story was within his rights not to show his license.

How on earth is that a coherent rejoinder to the story of someone who decided to refuse to show his receipt to a store?

The idiot in the story escalated his own problem. He felt like making a fuss, on a ridiculously tiny principle, that is not exactly a banner example of trampled civil rights, and so he brought everything on himself. And I see he's drawing quite a band of silly followers here, all ready to march down the road behind him singing "We Will Overcome." LOL!

[LSK]

46. I am actually fine with stores checking receipts

Not with requiring to show my license at will.

Thanks for wrongly assuming thou.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

50. Being unlawfully detained

Is a "ridiculous tiny principle"?

[earthside]

100. In Bush's America?

It cerrtainly is an appropriate analogy.

'Rosa Parks should have just gotten up; she made a mountain out of a mole hill' ... Is the contention that someone else gets to decide which infringement of liberty is the one worth fighting over?

The problem is that in isolation many of these violations of individual dignity may seem reasonable, but taken together in our "post 9/11" world, we are already living inside tyranny.

The fusion of corporation and government during the Bush regime means that all of these fights for our liberties should be accepted. We should all challenge as many of these infringements as we can, and support others who make the fight.

Good for this guy, I say.

[redqueen]

27. oh for the love of god

:rofl:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

96. When the store manager blocked the closin of the car door

It was unlawful detainment.

Personally I would have told the driver to take off an let the fucker lose a finger..

[lips]

23. Store owners insist that every shopper must be delinquent...

by doing this, therefore the assumption being made is that of a corporation dictating it's rights and liberties to the detriment of people's rights and liberties. In the first place, these two bestowals of freedom, when compared, are skewed beyond recognition.

[havocmom]

80. And what about any of us berating Reps for not standing up for our rights?

ah, forget it.

[Demit]

85. I do not think refusing to show a receipt relates to habeas corpus or torture renditions.

But please, start a thread showing me the connection, and I promise to read it thoughtfully.

[havocmom]

90. All based on the willingness to give away rights

Degrees, for sure, but the mind set is the same.

[Demit]

102. Oh, okay, I see now. The scales are falling from my eyes even as I type.

I think your next step should be to start a groundswell of letterwriting to all our elected officials—not to ask them to fight for the right of all human beings to habeas corpus, or against the rendition of American citizens to locations where they are held in secrecy so they can be tortured—but to plead passionately for the right to refuse to show your store receipt. After all, as you've shown so eloquently, this is of vital importance to our democracy.

[havocmom]

262. Whoa. I'm not the one advocating people roll over and do as told

when the people telling them what to do have no fucking legal rights to INSIST we give up our rights voluntarily.

My point is People here whine about REPS not standing up to bullies but they won't do it themselves and they whine about a guy who did.

SHEEP

[Demit]

268. You know who's whining? The man in this story.

"They want to make me show my receipt! It's my right not to show my receipt! I'm calling 911 because they are persecuting me in making me show my receipt!" What a smacked-ass example of standing up for civil rights. You know what gets me? The only story we have is from this man's point of view, and he couldn't make it sound sympathetic even though he was the one telling it. It came through loud and clear that he was looking for a confrontation. People like that generally get one.

[havocmom]

270. HE'S giving lessons on being an American

The whiners are the ones who want him to shut up and go along to get along.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport. If there are entities or persons rolling over one's rights, one needs to stand up and make a racket about it.

Does the man serve democracy if he just shuts up and takes it? NO. He was NOT letting others roll over him. And he wants others to think about the points he is dealing with. Evidently, that makes a lot of people around here uncomfortable. What is amazing is I see a lot of those same people blasting the DEMS on the Hill for letting others roll over them.

A-mazing. A-fucking-mazing.

Freedom and justice is wonderful, but it doesn't just happen. We have to defend it. EVERY SINGLE DAY.

[Demit]

272. I hope the judge gives him a lesson on wasting the court's time. I hope he gets the justice

he deserves. This is the last time I'll respond to you, but I just want to say that I think that equating the right not to show a shopping receipt with defending freedom and justice is—well, it's obscene. It's more than ridiculous. For some reason this absurd man has captured your imagination, and you are going to feel very silly when more of his story comes out, but for right now I want to say that your defense of him as an example of 'serving democracy' is obscene.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

291. The man was arrested and the cop didn't even know what for

Until he got to the station house and discussed it with his fellow officers.

It is the cop that is wasting the court's time.

[mhatrw]

301. Has your brain has been wired wrong by watching too much People's Court or something?

The guy's motives have nothing to do with the actual issue here.

Should stores have the right to detain innocent shoppers who refuse to show their receipts or not?

Should innocent shoppers who have done nothing suspicious have the right to refuse a corporate police search or not?

If you stick to the issues at hand and stop personalizing, you'll notice that what you are actually saying is that any right you personally don't mind having violated is one that no else should mind having violated. And how self-centered (and authoritarian) is that?

[mhatrw]

300. What does it matter about the guy's motives?

Should stores have the right to detain innocent shoppers who refuse to show their receipts or not?

Should innocent shoppers who have done nothing suspicious have the right to refuse a corporate police search or not?

If you stick to the issues at hand and stop personalizing, you'll notice that what you are actually saying is that any right you personally don't mind having violated is one that no else should mind having violated. And how self-centered (and authoritarian) is that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

309. Free hint

the store has the right to ask

I have the right to say no

Capice?

[WinkyDink]

215. No, the COP MADE A MOUNTAIN OUT OF THIN AIR. And it's called "false arrest".

[MUSTANG_2004]

218. It was small, but not unimportant. As these threads show.

At the very least, it has generated a lot of discussion and learning about exactly what our rights are.

Even if we choose to give the police a pass on small things, I think it is useful for both us and the police to deal with the smaller issues sometimes. It reminds both parties what our rights are.

Even if we choose to let something like this pass (and I would have - rather than make a big deal about it, I would have shown the officer my license), it's valuable to know the difference between what he HAVE to do, and what we CHOOSE to do.

[Demit]

251. The problem is, mustang, that there are two separate occurrences in the story—

The guy refusing to show his driver's license to the cop, and refusing to show his shopping receipt to the store representative (even though he readily showed it to the cop). Declining to show the license I understand, and in principle even agree with, but it was all precipitated by the guy's obstreperousness. The cop wouldn't even have been there if it hadn't been for the guy calling 911. He escalated the situation almost singlehandedly (with some assist from the store people).

Half of the comments in these threads are people accusing those of us who think the guy is not at all sympathetic of not being liberal and progressive, and half of those go beyond hyperbole into the realm of sheer hysteria, with comparisons to Rosa Parks and warnings that this is of a piece with losing habeas corpus, only different in degree. The information about what ID different states require people to carry has been useful, and I appreciate those posters, but the rest has been pure entertainment.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

298. The guy called 911 because he was being unlawfully detained..

And I don't see him as being obstreperous at all, just standing up for his rights.

[TahitiNut]

21. I think it's the "I wouldn't bother doing that" so attack anyone that would ... syndrome.

We human beans tend to take our own choices and opinions very personally ... and 'defend' them by attacking those who do otherwise. I, for one, am glad this guy is willing to take a stance on something I have chosen to regard as a 'less important' investment of time and effort than my mostly-trivial daily activities. If more of us chose to fight these 'trivialities' that inundate our culture, maybe we'd have a more effective dike against that flood.

So, I'm thankful that others have different priorities in the exercise of our common civil liberties.

I feel no need to attack him merely because I usually make a different choice. In principle, he's right.

[redqueen]

25. I think the problem is the reverse.

Far too many are willing to stand up regarding the 'trivial', while the monumental is easier to just ignore.

potayto, potahto

[Elspeth]

36. I agree with Tahiti Nut here.

This guy did a good thing for all of us. Just because we don't have the forethought or the guts to do it ourselves doesn't mean we should slam him for it.

[redqueen]

37. Guts? To refuse to show a receipt?

Jesus christ... I'm not long for this site.

[Demit]

54. LOL! Please stay. Surely you are appreciating the entertainment value.

You and I are apparently overlooking the creeping fascism of forced-receipt-showing, but I aren't you enjoying the stirring Thomas Paine-like calls to rise up against this new oppression, at least a little?

[redqueen]

61. ...

:rofl:


Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!


The evil nasty bad store owners want to SEE MY RECEIPT!

GOD DAMN THEM!

GOD DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!

THEY CAN SEE MY RECEIPT WHEN THEY'VE PRIED IT FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!

:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

60. Consider ...

I'd guess there're a LOT of people who use the "bigger problems" claim as an excuse to do nothing. The path to "do nothing" is in CHOOSING to not do the "small stuff" ... and, well, those big issues ... (sigh) ... well, that's the way it is. I'm heartened any time I see people who do SOMETHING positive - even that which I might claim is "less important" than the BIG WINDMILL at which I'm currently tilting.

As a fellow who grimaces every time he surrenders his receipt ... I'm glad. As a fellow who has ground his teeth for years about the many (trivial?) ways he's treated as a criminal who must PROVE otherwise, I'm glad someone is willing to make the (seemingly disproportional?) investment in 'inconvenience' for something so 'trivial.'

I'm old enough to remember when businesses didn't treat customers as possible criminals - an adversary. I'm old enough to remember when there were more owner-operated businesses than corporate retail outlets - and the owner-operated businesses treated their customers as neighbors, not "the enemy" - or they lost customers.

I detest piss tests. I detest receipt-checking. I detest the amount of PERSONAL information I'm required to give up in order to board an airplane. I detest the alliance of corporations and government that is working in collaboration to treat The People as chattel.

It takes a lot of sand to make a beach. Anyone who takes their OWN time to pick up a grain or two to improve the landscape for all of us has my appreciation.

[redqueen]

64. How do we know this guy does anything besides get into scuffles with retail employees?

Oh I just LOVE the whole 'ignore the big issues, that's just the way it is' bullshit. WTF? Are you serious?

YOU called it trivial. I was using YOUR word there. But yes, IMO it certainly is.

I detest a lot of things too. One thing I detest is being called a sheep because I don't consider showing a fucking receipt to be some huge, battle-worthy infringement on my rights.

I wonder if this yahoo even KNOWS about stolen elections. But oh well, right? That's JUST THE WAY IT IS.

:banghead:

[TahitiNut]

72. Again ... nobody is attacking your choices. Not even him.

Who says he DOESN'T address the "big" issues as well?

But ... when the foo shits, lots of folks seem eager to wear it. :shrug:


FWIW ... try reading again what I wrote in that post and detect the sarcastic tone in the first paragraph. You didn't get it, apparently.
:eyes:

[redqueen]

74. WTF? Lots of people attack my choices.

What makes you think otherwise? Oh you mean HERE? Well not today... but it happens all the time. Again: not such a big deal.

I don't know if he addresses any big issues or not... but I'm sure not gonna start calling him the next fucking Rosa Parks over THIS shit.

And yeah, I missed the sarcasm. The insanity level in this place is near all-time highs.

Thank god we've got guys like this, protecting us from having to show receipts. *sigh*

[TahitiNut]

83. So, do you enjoy the opportunity to prove you're not a thief?

It seems that some people do. :shrug:

[redqueen]

86. It doesn't bother me, no.

As I've said in other posts... just seems like a good business practice to me.

Maybe I'm wrong and it's a huge infringement on our most basic liberties.

[TahitiNut]

88. Paraphrasing: "If you've done nothing wrong, why would you care?"

Where have I heard that one before? :eyes:

[redqueen]

89. Shades of grey my friend.

Shades of grey.

Somehow I fail to see how showing receipts is the slippery slope that led to warrantless wiretapping.

[TahitiNut]

110. It's interesting how our personal exposure affects that "shade of grey."

Should I be concerned with security cameras in women's dressing rooms? Should I be concerned with stings that target gays? Should I be concerned with revealing dress codes for waitresses at Hooters? Should I be concerned with a mother's freedom to breastfeed her infant in public? Should I be concerned with a smoker's freedom to smoke in their own residence? Should I be concerned with availability of Plan B at Wal*Mart?

After all, those are 'small fish' - right? In fact, they don't DIRECTLY affect me. :shrug:

[redqueen]

113. Well I'm a woman and those cameras don't bother me.

As for "stings that target gays"... that sounds like BS. They're not targeting GAYS, they're targeting people who are harassing others to the point that they contact security. GAYS don't do that, ASSHOLES do.

I'm too tired of this shit to analyze the rest of all that.

You can be concerned about whatever you like. Clearly you'll have lots of people around to tell you what a great, meaningful cause it is... no matter how many others point and laugh.

[mhatrw]

302. So cameras in dressing rooms and bathrooms don't bother you either.

Well, at least you are consistent(ly a good sheep).

Furthermore, you feel that any right you personally don't mind having violated is one that no else should mind having violated. How self-centered (not to mention authoritarian) can you get?

[Greyhound]

249. I'm pretty sure that's the point... n/t

[MUSTANG_2004]

161. Nicely said. /nt

[mhatrw]

212. It's all the same battle.

The only difference is degree. Just because an infringement is minor and ubiquitous doesn't make it meaningless.

[goodgd_yall]

43. Well said n/t

[goodgd_yall]

32. It's the success of capitalistic propaganda

It wasn't always this way.

[tabasco]

39. Television propaganda.

They control the telescreens.

[Individualist]

41. DLC is pro-corporations,

and they're not progressives.

[havocmom]

48. And how many of them decry elected reps for doing the same?

:evilgrin:

My ol momma always said, 'One shouldn't ask others to do for them what they aren't willing to do for themselves.'

[havocmom]

53. And how many of them are all for Al Gore?

With the corporate control of law makers managing to change so many laws in favor of the corporations, wouldn't civil disobedience be more revered?

Didn't Al Gore mention something about using civil disobedience constructively recently?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=xM0&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Al+Gore+%2B+civil+disobedience&spell=1

[TreasonousBastard]

57. It's not taking the side of corporations, it's...

not taking the side of an asshole who calls the cops and then gives them a hard time. Duh!

Big Shot protestor finds the best thing he can do to protest the world's ills is diss a rent-a-cop at Circuit City. When said rent-a-cop doesn't like that, he calls the police, and then proceeds to tell the cop how to do his job.

Fucking loser-- too chickenshit to picket a Marine recruiter or refuse to get a photo ID or pay "war taxes" but this lame and supposedly safe "protest" goes bad for him.

No sale. I've seen guys like this "explain" the law to judges in traffic court, "demand" their rights from cops, and other displays of highly ill-timed macho bullshit. It never ends well.

[Hydra]

66. I suppose it's fair to allow the system not to follow it's own rules

After all, why would we have a gov't or police that enforced the law correctly?

[tomreedtoon]

59. In case you haven't noticed, there are thieves.

And it is entirely possible that the character's attempt to leave the store without being checked helped confirm his appearance as a thief.

If it looked like he had stolen a woman's purse and stowed it in his bag - or a live baby - would you also approve of him trying to beat feet and get out of the store?

Unless you wish to say that anyone has a right to steal anything from a store, because you hate the evil imperialist capitalists, this is a non-issue. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a Republican troll planted this whole thread, just to prove how the people of DU support thieves and baby-kidnappers.

[redqueen]

71. No, this is the next Rosa Parks we're lookin at!

:eyes:

[Dr. Strange]

95. OMG!

:rofl:

Here's to you: :toast:

[TahitiNut]

79. Ubetcha "there are thieves"!! They're EVERYWHERE.

So, the next time I have something stolen, I guess I can go around the neighborhood and demand that all my neighbors PROVE they didn't steal it? After all, their rights are secondary to their OBLIGATION to help me find the thief, right? Process of elimination ... anyone who refuses to let me search their home MUST be halping the thif .. so I'll just tell them to call a cop and know the cop will arrest them for not helping me??

Wow.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Circuit City didn't even KNOW IF something was stolen. What they're doing is saying "prove you haven't" before they have the foggiest idea whether something was stolen.

It's the ol' "if you've done nothing wrong, why would you care?" Fascinating to hear it on the "LEFT."

[havocmom]

82. And there are terrorists. Turn over your rights

ALL of them

What silliness.

[earthside]

108. In case you haven't noticed, there are terrorists.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

And it is entirely possible that the character's attempt to go to the bathroom on the airplane confirmed his appearance as a terrorist.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

See ... where does it stop?

[lonestarnot]

62. What the hell?

I better read about this somewhere?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. I think it's just kind of sad...

that people don't understand their basic rights.

Were they asleep in junior high social studies class?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

70. i don't choose sides between corporations and citizens

I choose sides between right and wrong. In this case, the citizen was wrong.

"If you have paid for an item the store has no right to detain you in any way, and in fact they face a massive lawsuit if they do so."

Ummm....the guy at the store was checking the receipt to VERIFY that the customer paid for the item. Your own posts backs the corporation.

And you have the right to shop at any other store you wish, if you don't like Circuit City. Hell, go start your own chain of electronics stores. Of course, I'd be curious to see your shoplifting policies after a few years in business and millions of dollars in losses from theft...

I don't like showing my receipt either. That's why I rarely if ever shop at any large retailer. When their sales drop because nobody wants to shop there anymore, the "gestapo" will be removed.

[Magrittes Pipe]

73. I wish I could reccomend individual posts.

I'm glad that you have some kind of grasp on reality. If more here did, we'd be an actual political force instead of a reactionary echo chamber full of dullards.

[redqueen]

76. Hey

He's not the only one.

[Magrittes Pipe]

81. Ah, but it goes without saying, m'dear.

I am shocked daily by the ever-widening gap between GD and reality.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

159. hey let's give credit where credit is due....

;)

[Snarkturian Clone]

187. I wish I could recommend YOUR post!!

:applause:

[TahitiNut]

87. Paraphrasing: "If you've done nothing wrong, why would you care?"

Where have I heard that one before? :eyes:

[Scriptor Ignotus]

164. big difference between the governement saying that

and Circuit City. BIG difference.

[redqueen]

206. You would think, yes. n/t

[FREEWILL56]

126. This is all very interesting

and a subject that I hadn't given much thought to until its addressing here. I will address this with my own experience with a local Walmart. No, I never refused to show my receipt. What does this receipt prove? NOTHING REALLY, because the individual could have shopped earlier and went back in and then stoll the same items or had other items in the bags that weren't paid for. They don't check my bags as that is illegal searching and no store employee, even if security, is allowed to search anybody. At best. security can detain you if probable cause (proof of theft) is there for the police to handle it. If the police can't see evidence of wrongdoing(stealing) the store could be sued for illegally imprisoning somebody and illegal search.
Now that brings us back to this showing of the receipt thing. What does it do? Is it right to not show it without being accused of wrongdoing? Is that proof of wrongdoing? What if he accindentally dropped his receipt after paying for the stuff? It does not prove or disprove wrongdoing and refusal does not mean you have something to hide or make you guilty of a crime, but in this guy's case he was defending his rights imho and they deemed it criminal for him not to show the receipt and that is wrong. I was in retail and I can say this without question that any store that detains you based on only if you show a receipt is violating the law by denying you your rights. There must be proof of wrongdoing to act in this manner. Proof is an eyewitness account of the theft or it is on tape.

[Goblinmonger]

189. They only have the right to detain you

if they have a reasonable suspicison that you have shoplifted. The writer of the blog said that he told the manager to call the police if he suspected shoplifting. The manager did not. At that point, the manager had no reasonable suspicision and was falsely imprisoning the blogger which is a tort at best and a criminal offense at the worst. Remember, the guy was out of the store when the manager detained him.

[mhatrw]

217. How about if you just refuse to show your receipt instead? n/t

[Scriptor Ignotus]

246. how about if Circuit City refuses to sell you their goods?

seems like a fair trade.

[mhatrw]

255. Fine with me. What I have a problem with is when they smile at me when

I pay for their goods and then make me stand in another line to prove I'm not stealing when I try to exit their store a minute later.

[FREEWILL56]

317. Sounds like a good idea

and it won't be long that their long list of don't sell tos put them out of business. The last ones buying from the store are the ones who don't care about their own rights, but in reality those that care about their rights will eventually boycott such places and that will put them out long before the likes of the republicon party ever would as they only see corporations as having rights. Maybe, I'm being too hard on all republicons in that statement in hoping that not all agree that people don't have rights, but it would seem many dems agree that only corporations have rights. What fools.

[kenny blankenship]

78. Authoritarians are your neighbors too.

but they don't wear t-shirts outing themselves as authoritarians every day. So, it can come as a surprise when you find out they walk among us...

Shoppers in megastores went from being respectable citizens to a kind of generic suspect class who might be forced to prove that they were not shoplifting from the store --rather than the store having to prove the reverse.

Being old enough to have seen this transformation of American society take place and having been sickly fascinated through the 80s and 90s by its smooth, gradual, inexorably up-ratcheting action, I have not been surprised much to see our country lie down during the Bush era for pervasive, preemptive, unwarranted, unConstitutional blanket electronic surveillance, and lie down for illegitimate government in all its forms, from Bush's malignant Unitary Executive and his PermaWar, to corporate supplied DRE balloting fraud. The country that was horrified by and fought back against Nixon's political abuses of the national security apparatus is gone and probably will never be reborn. The outrage was real and the fight was justified and it even scored some rollbacks of arbitrary authority; but even so our national innocence was lost in the contest. After a while we grew a scab over it and learned to just keep our heads down.

This guy in Ohio may lose his cases against Circuit City, he may lose his case against the police, he might even be a "self-righteous asshole", but in simply fighting to preserve and mark out his rights to be treated like a free CITIZEN, instead of like a convict or slave who has to turn his pockets in front of his masters and keepers, he is doing all of you a great favor--which some of you don't deserve.

[smoogatz]

84. I see it as a matter of picking your battles.

Receipt-checking seems to me a minor intrusion compared with, you know, the NSA reading my email, or the FBI snooping through my library records or internet history. I mean, if the guy really wants to get his ass thrown in jail because the receipt-checker kid asks to look in his bag, that's his choice, I guess. But in order to be morally consistent, he'd have to refuse to walk through metal detectors at airports and government buildings, refuse to open his coat/bag at concerts, refuse to check his backpack at museums, and refuse to share his medical records with insurers. If he's doing all that stuff he's really making a statement and I'm impressed. If he's not, he's wasting public resources and being kind of an immature jerk.

[redqueen]

92. It seems to some, the receipt inspecing is just as bad as the spying.

I don't get it.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

103. Because receipt checking is a form of spying..

Once you have paid for the item it is *yours*.

What do you fail to understand about that?

[mondo joe]

129. If the store has its policy posted, you tacitly agree to it by entering.

If you don't like the policy, don't shop there.

[mhatrw]

264. Wrong. Again.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.legal.moderated/msg/aac30854a1b2745d?hl=en&

The normal principles of contract law require an agreement, and there's no good reason to believe that the shopper has necessarily agreed to the contents of this or that sign, just because he happened to have passed it on the way in. (If you've ever been in a CompUSA, you know it's positively lousy with signs proclaiming this or that wonderful deal. One could easily be forgiven for missing one, however "prominent.")

Signs like this have been pretty consistently declared null and void by courts for decades, though there are a few exceptions. Examples include those "We are not responsible for coats" signs, "We aren't responsible for what happens to your car" in parking lots, etc. Even software shrink-wrap licenses are generally invalid. (That doesn't mean that the software isn't still protected by basic copyright law, though.)

In any case, even if the sign has the full force of law, it doesn't make it into a crime to refuse the search. At the very worst, it makes the refusal a breach of contract, and a breach without any actual damages whatsoever, at that. So as a practical matter, I'd say, no, the sign doesn't affect things at all, really.

[progressoid]

146. What???

receipt checking is a form of spying..

Golly, you better only buy with cash and make sure every store you go to doesn't keep a copy of your receipt then.

[Snarkturian Clone]

188. um

:crazy: :silly: :crazy: :tinfoilhat:

[mhatrw]

219. Minor but ubiquitous.

This is a fight that could be easily won if just a few percent of us were not utterly docile sheep, and the fact that everybody just says "choose your battles" about this and a whole litany of other minor encroachments on our rights has emboldened our corpocracy to the sad point where we now find ourselves.

[smoogatz]

224. I've been trying to make a similar point on another thread

without much luck. I think the best thing we could do in terms of battling corporate intrusion would probably be to stop using credit cards, simply because they open our lives to so much inspection, and directly or indirectly are connected to all kinds of very personal information that can be accessed by thousands of total strangers. This whole bag-check thing seems pretty silly: another DU tempest in a teapot.

[ComerPerro]

91. because it is not progressive to champion the cause of self-righteous assholes. Thats conservative

This isn't a case of personal liberties, individual and Constitutional rights, or even little guy vs. oppressive evil corporation.

This is just a case of one asshole who refused to cooperate with store policy, decided to be a fuckhead and call the police, and then refused to even cooperate with police when he just "knew" he was in the right.

Why waste time championing spoiled fuckheads when there are plenty of conservatives who dedicate their entire lives to doing so?

[redqueen]

93. ...

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

[Magrittes Pipe]

94. You kick ass.

:patriot:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

99. The manager was the asshole

If you can't see that then there is no hope for you.

[ComerPerro]

104. you are extremely easily lead, aren't you? The author of that piece was looking to start shit

Here's what probably happened. He was out of story ideas, so he decided to write a story on our eroding freedoms. But rather than do some actual research and write about actual threats to constitutional rights, he decided to take the easy way out. Cast the villian as a evil, oppressive corporation, and he has a guaranteed sympathetic audience.

So what does he do? He goes to his electronics store, acts shady to arouse suspicion, and then refuses to cooperate with the person at the door. In fact, he goes way over the top by having someone pull up front to pick him up, presumably to speed away. Security is naturally alarmed and concerned, and by now the store manager is fully aware of what is going on.

They stop him, the cops show up, he acts like a huge asshole to everyone, and for his refusal to cooperate he is detained.

Once in custody he explains himself and is released, no harm no foul.

And now we have a story!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

327. When did you learn to read minds?

Going by the story, the man made an impromptu stop to pick up a present.

How was he to know that simply standing by his rights not to have his personal property searched that he would end up harassed, detained and then arrested.

I honestly don't understand why you think he was an asshole.

The assholes were the store employee and the cop.

The cop had no reason whatsoever to ask for ID once he had verified the receipt was legit.

The cop was just being an officious, authoritarian jerk.

[ComerPerro]

370. Even from his own account, he comes off like an asshole, That should tell you something

I don't understand why you think this idiot is some sort of pop culture hero, except for maybe the fact that you don't really value progressive causes, but instead just concern yourself with image, and how "against the man" you are. I am guessing that is all their is to your positions. Probably don't actually believe in anything, its all for show. Which explains why you are so willing to buy into obvious bullshit like that article.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. It blows my mind too

Let me know if you get a reasonable explanation. I will be busy for awhile :banghead:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

101. I doubt I'll get a reasonable explanation..

Just a bunch of authoritarians standing up for other authoritarians.

[justanaveragedude]

111. So let me get this straight..

I own a store. I've got a problem. Too much of my merchandise is walking out the front door without being paid for. This is either going to cost me money, or my customers with higher prices. So I set a new store policy. Since I allow customers to pay for merchandise and remain in the store to shop for other things, I'm going to require a show of receipt before you are allowed to leave the store with any merchandise. You are well aware of this before you choose to shop at my store. If you don't like it, you don't have to shop at my store. How is this a violation of your liberty? I just don't get it.

Also, if this a violation of my liberty, is it a violation to be asked for an ID before they will accept a check or credit card. After all, I haven't given them any reason to believe that I have stolen said check or credit card. Do you believe that is a violation of your liberties?

[redqueen]

119. Hello there justanaveragedude!

Welcome to DU!

WE NEED MORE LIKE YOU! :bounce:

[proud2BlibKansan]

124. If you really did have a problem, your merchandise would most likely

be going out the BACK door. Employee theft is a much larger problem than shoplifting.

[justanaveragedude]

128. I agree..

Employee theft probably is a bigger problem. However, they are both still problems. Since I'm a good little multi-tasker I will handle both.

New Wal-Mart Store Policy

"ANY EMPLOYEE CAUGHT STEALING SHALL BE SHOT, HUNG, and BURNED AT THE STAKE!! NOW GET OFF OF YOU ASS OLD MAN AND GO SAY HELLO TO EVERYONE WHO WALKS THROUGH THE DOOR!!"

[Goblinmonger]

190. Apparently,

as long as you have a sign that says what you are going to do, you are OK. They don't have to work for you if they don't want to.

[mhatrw]

221. When and where do your customers agree to your new policy?

[justanaveragedude]

256. When they walk into the store and

See well placed signs at the entrance, at the register, and on the receipt it self where it will plainly state "PLEASE PRESENT RECEIPT UPON EXIT."

But I would actually take it one step further to say that store owners have the right to verify that all merchandise has been paid for before they allow said merchandise to leave the store. Regardless if signs of the policy are posted. I think it a good idea to post the policy, however I don't believe store owners have a duty to do so. It is not a violation of my right or liberty to be asked that before I walk out of a store to show that I actually paid for the merchandise that I leaving with anymore than it is a violation of my liberties to be asked to verify my ID when paying by check or credit card.

[mhatrw]

265. Well, you'd be 100% wrong then, Justice Bork.

The store owner has a right to determine if you are making your purchase legally. Once you have made your purchase, the store owner cannot detain you without probable cause, at least in California:

California penal code says:

490.5 (f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.

No probable cause = no right to detain

http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.legal.moderated/msg/aac30854a1b2745d?hl=en&

The normal principles of contract law require an agreement, and there's no good reason to believe that the shopper has necessarily agreed to the contents of this or that sign, just because he happened to have passed it on the way in. (If you've ever been in a CompUSA, you know it's positively lousy with signs proclaiming this or that wonderful deal. One could easily be forgiven for missing one, however "prominent.")

Signs like this have been pretty consistently declared null and void by courts for decades, though there are a few exceptions. Examples include those "We are not responsible for coats" signs, "We aren't responsible for what happens to your car" in parking lots, etc. Even software shrink-wrap licenses are generally invalid. (That doesn't mean that the software isn't still protected by basic copyright law, though.)

In any case, even if the sign has the full force of law, it doesn't make it into a crime to refuse the search. At the very worst, it makes the refusal a breach of contract, and a breach without any actual damages whatsoever, at that. So as a practical matter, I'd say, no, the sign doesn't affect things at all, really.

[justanaveragedude]

269. Asking for a receipt to verify purchase = Detainment?

And by the way, I agree it is not a crime to refuse a search.

[mhatrw]

303. Of course not. You may ask me anything.

No controversy exists until I decide to act like a human being with rights rather than a sheep with none and decline your invasive, uncouth and insulting request. What then?

[nadinbrzezinski]

311. Wrong answer

the only way you can do this is to have a contract and make that store a membership store

See Costco, where I sign a contract

Signs posted have not held in court

[goodhue]

115. Because asking for receipt upon exit is relatively routine in some stores and in some communities

And to blow right by without showing receipt is simply asking for trouble.
Now if they were selectively profiling based on ethnicity that would be wrong.

[mondo joe]

118. I believe the ACLU's stance is that if the store has a sign saying

that it inspects packages, then by entering the store and buying something, the shopper agrees to follow the rule.

This does not seem to me to be an unreasonable stance (unless of course the sign is placed in a way that is obstructed or hidden).

[ComerPerro]

120. but, hey, what does the ACLU know, right?

[redqueen]

140. The ACLU supports the EVIL, FACIST CORPORATIONS?!

:wow:

[mhatrw]

222. I believe that you are fertilizing this thread. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

225. The ACLU is a Bush loving organization.

Obviously. :sarcasm:

[RebelOne]

121. I don't understand what the big deal is about showing a receipt

for something you purchased. In fact, when shopping in places like Best Buy, I have my receipt in hand as I go out the door.

[goodhue]

125. yes, I don't get it either

But then I show receipts when asked (which does happen on occasion).
I don't see a civil rights issue unless treated differently because of race or ethnicity.

[FREEWILL56]

399. Nope, no profiling going on here

as everybody is a thief unless they can prove otherwise and if you don't you're every name in the book because there's no such thing as innocent until proven guilty anymore.

[slowry]

127. "I have my receipt in hand" = "Just following orders"

:sarcasm:

[redqueen]

166. So now if you agree to show a receipt, you're a NAZI?!

:rofl:

Jesus Sufferin Christ!

Can it GET any more ridiculous?!

[mhatrw]

305. No, but you are a sheep. n/t

[earthside]

142. Key Words: "You Purchased"

That means the item is yours.

You have property rights, too.

Once the transaction is completed, the store doesn't have anymore rights to that product that they did to the car keys in your pocket when you walked into the business.

So, actually, if you believe in capitalism and property rights, the store is way out of line to be asking you for a receipt.

Probably, this is why most states do not have laws saying that a store has a right to ask you for a receipt.

It also means that the store should be intent upon stopping shoplifting before a person gets in the checkout line -- or only if they have a belief that a specific individual is walking out of the store without having purchased a store item. In other words, assuming everyone is a potential thief by asking for a receipt is a false accusation.

I hope this guy wins and these big corporate stores have to start treating us, the consumers, with a bit more respect and dignity. And, it would be nice if this starts a trend to taking our country back from the fascistic Bushites who seem intent upon building a totalitarian regime where everything we do is open to inspection by the government/corporations.

[Left Is Write]

168. Yes, it's the principle that bothers me.

It really isn't a "big deal" to show a receipt. However, people who become inured to these "little deals" are less likely to be alarmed when little deals turn into big deals. If we don't protest losing "small" liberties, how can we protect ourselves from losing the big ones?

[Evoman]

312. And some of us don't see what the big deal is about not showing a receipt.

Since we don't have to. Whats the big deal?

[LanternWaste]

123. I'm not going to jump to a conclusion

Although I don't know anything about the particular case you're referring to, if I believe the private citizen is wrong and the corporation is right, I'll side w/ the corporation.

I'm not going to jump to a conclusion simply because one side presented is a private citizen-- we've been known to be not only wrong before, but consciously wrong.


So in answer to the question posed, "Why do so many liberals/progressives take the side of corporations against a private citizen?", I'll answer-- "Because the corporation isn't always guilty, and the private citizen isn't always innocent."

[RaleighNCDUer]

130. Hold it, hold it, hold it.

Doesn't Circuit City have those magnetic strip detectors at the exits? If the alarm sounded, the store has every right to verify that whatever set it off was actually purchased. If it didn't go off, then the store had no reasonable suspicion to demand verification.

Which was it?

Can we have all the facts before getting hysterical?

And if the store doesn't have those detectors, why the hell not. the store specializes in electronic gizmos. It's their thing.

Also, do those objecting to receipt checking also object to walking between detectors as they exit Blockbuster or Target? What, precisely, is the difference?

[MUSTANG_2004]

132. They're a minority. Just vocal. /nt

[redqueen]

148. Yeah, that pesky, vocal ACLU. n/t

[MUSTANG_2004]

154. Wrong side.

I was talking about the "pro-Circuit City/Police" group on the other thread is a small but vocal minority. More posters seem to be on the side of the arrested dissenter.

[redqueen]

157. The ACLU is on the side of the evil fascist corporation in this case.

They're within their rights to infringe on your liberties and force you to show a receipt.

OH THE HORROR!

[MUSTANG_2004]

160. Are they? I haven't seen that yet.

Do you have a link?

By the way, it's not the showing the receipt that's the annoyance for me, it's searching my belongings that's disagreeable, with the threat of being detained if I don't consent.

[redqueen]

163. I tried to find one, but their website isn't so easy to search. n/t

[mondo joe]

245. This is not direct from the ACLU so it's not verified, but

the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports the following:

A store asks me to open my bag. What are my rights?
Customers have the right to say no, said Lewis Katz, a Case Western Reserve University law professor and author of "Know Your Rights." That's why store employees and security guards usually ask permission. Security guards are allowed to search you without a warrant in three specific instances, said Jennifer Brindisi, a spokeswoman for Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann. That's at the border, in the airport and before entering private property. Otherwise, unless you're prepared to take a stand, it's easier to comply, ACLU Ohio Director Jeff Gamso said.

What about wholesale clubs? Are the rules different?
Yes. People who sign up to shop at such a club agree to the store 's rules, which could include receipt checks as the customer leaves.Members agree to the checks when they sign up, he said. And signs are posted throughout the warehouse, reminding customers of the checking policy."We'll ask them as polite as we can," said Dave Klein, assistant manager of the Costco store in Mayfield Heights. "We can't make them do anything."

What if the store has a sign saying that it inspects packages?
If a sign exists, then by entering the store and buying something, the shopper agrees to follow the rule, the ACLU said.

Can police force you to present your driver's license?
If you are not driving a car, Katz and the ACLU believe that police cannot demand a driver's license.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/118906894530510.xml&coll=2

[mhatrw]

266. Katz says you have a right to refuse. You do.

If there was a sign saying it is store policy to beat all paying customers with a stick as they exit the store, would the ACLU agree that "If a sign exists, then by entering the store and buying something, the shopper agrees to follow the rule"?

Just wondering ...

[progressoid]

135. Pretty broad brush you paint with

Not supporting this guy does not equate taking the side of corporations over a private citizen. Nor does it mean advocating a police state (ie Gestapo tactics).

"Stand up for what rights you still have or they will be gone" Sure. But bitching about having your bag checked at Circuit city or Best Buy is just childish. This is where we make a stand? :crazy: Some things are just petty and not worth the effort. This is not the beginning of the Fourth Reich.

If he has a problem with their policies there are myriad positive ways to address it. Yet he picked the least effective but most attention getting way. That says a lot. It's hard to defend some dip shit with a persecution complex who decides to take out his frustration with authority on a minimum wage employee at Circuit City.

[redqueen]

141. yup... intentionally broad, it seems

do i smell pizza?

[mondo joe]

144. That one side is a private citizen and the other a corporation does

not necessarily mean the former is right and the latter wrong.

It may often happen that way, but it is not necessarily so in every case.

That's what critical thought is for - looking at the particulars of the incident.

[earth mom]

145. Make no mistake-There are many freepers and rethugs hanging around here that walk a fine line

and who haven't been exposed. :grr:

[ComerPerro]

280. nice. A person named "TheGoldenRule" advocating treating other people like shit

[earth mom]

338. First off, I didn't advocate anything-I pointed out the truth. Funny how you are so touchy

about my post though....

Also, FYI-my user name is a direct slam at those same rethugs and freepers who preach morals and ethics, while they themselves are actually the ones treating people like so much shit and trash.

But you knew that already, didn't you? :eyes:

[ComerPerro]

365. so its just a coincidence that you called half of this site closeted freepers, and

celebrate some wannabe libertarian dumbass who acts like an asshole to retail employees, calls the cops on them, and then acts like an asshole to the cops, and then gets suprised when hes arrested.

"Golden Rule" my ass.

[earth mom]

391. WTF? Exactly when did the word "many" become "half"?

I'd say that you need to learn a thing or two about The Golden Rule because you are the one coming at me with both barrels.

Which PRECISELY proves my original point.

[ComerPerro]

392. stuff it, you're the one who started out by calling anyone who didn't worship your hero a freeper

[earth mom]

393. Take a chill pill dude. nt

[earthside]

147. Here's Another Guy Making a Mountain Out of a Molehill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2980379

Sheesh ... it is just a littering charge.

[redqueen]

155. wow.. .rosa parks, the boston tea party, and now this

:rofl:

[ProudDad]

194. Here's another guy making a mountain out of a molehill

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0811/dailyUpdate.html

Slippery slope anyone?

[Warren DeMontague]

323. Yeah. This is EXACTLY like Extraordinary Rendition.

Totally the same thing.

Totally.

:eyes:

[ProudDad]

388. For all intents and purposes

it is...

This is NOT the USAmerica I was born and raised in.

That USAmerica had safety valves and bail-outs and the capability for someone to start again -- to be allowed to redeem themselves. This one doesn't...

That USAmerica was based on a basic trust of one another. This one assumes that everyone's guilty until proved innocent...

I miss that old USAmerica of possibilities, some small modicum of forgiveness and trust and freedom.

But is doesn't serve corporate interests nor Big Brother so away with it...

[Warren DeMontague]

389. Have you ever worked a retail job in your life? I have. And I didn't work for "big brother", either.

I worked for a locally owned company comprised of a small number of indie stores that was fighting for its life against bigger, more anonymous corporate chains. We had a very anti-corporate ethos. We gave back to the community. We were PART of the community. And you know what?

We had shoplifters robbing us fucking BLIND. People want to play like shoplifters are some kind of robin hood heroes, stickin it to "the man"? That's a crock. I know better. These guys didn't give a shit about corporate, not corporate, blah blah blah. They just wanted to steal shit. Hell, back in the day, when I was working for barely above minimum wage (in a relatively upscale town, no less), at one point we had a guy wander into the back of the store, up a flight of stairs, and we caught him trying to leave through the fire door with a bicycle. Mind you, this wasn't a bicycle store. It was actually MY Bicycle, a beat up old mountain bike that was my only means of transportation at the time.

Oh, yeah, god forbid stores should try to stop thieves. :eyes: Maybe back in "the good old days", people wouldn't steal anything that wasn't nailed down. But now, they do. And did we have anti-theft measures, including alarms at the exits? Yes, we did. We needed them, sad to say.

[johnnie]

149. Here's my reason

Some poor dude is getting paid minimum wage to sit there and do what his company tells him. The guy who thought he was changing the world by not showing his receipt was just a pain in the ass.

I also got a kick out of how you call out liberals/progressives and then further down the thread talk about not being able to wait to sue someone if this happens to you. That cracked me up. Go get 'em hot shot. :rofl:

[redqueen]

158. Oooh that is a somewhat telling remark, isn't it? n/t

[The Vinyl Ripper]

259. It is conservatives..

Who are in favor of "tort reform" to restrict the rights of citizens to sue..

[Proud Liberal Dem]

150. I don't understand what all of the fuss is about?

I've been shopping at places like Best Buy and Circuit City for years and never really thought much about them checking my purchase/receipt before leaving the store, although from what I can recall they usually they've only checked my purchase if I had bought a large expensive item like computers, televisions, videogame systems, etc. I don't recall ever having to show them anything, at least at Best Buy, if all I've purchased is a DVD, CD, or video game. I actually don't believe I've ever been asked to show anything at any Circuit City store I've been at ever, although if asked, I don't see what the huge deal would be about doing it. The story that started this "debate" seems like an overblown and totally unnecessary drama over what appears to have been a simple request by the store to verify this person's purchase and it appeared that it became a legal issue only when this PERSON contacted the police and then refused to comply with the orders of the police. We all certainly need to stand up to "Gestapo"-like tactics such as those promoted by the Bush (mis-)administration and their "minions" but I believe that we seriously need to maintain some perspective about which battles we NEED to fight and those things, annoying as they may be, have only a minimal (if even that) effect on our everyday lives, particularly when they are a condition of shopping at a particular store. IMHO having to show your receipt/purchase prior to leaving a store at their request seems rather inconsequential and not worth the kind of trouble that the individual who wrote about their experience at Circuit City went through and if people DO have a problem with such requests, then they should voice their opinions and bring pressure to bear on companies like Circuit City to change their policies or simply shop elsewhere. Furthermore, I should add that I feel that there is simply NO reasonable comparison between acquiescing to simple requests such as showing purchases/receipts prior to leaving stores and accepting things like ILLEGAL warrantless wiretapping, "Free Speech Zones", "No-Fly Lists," etc.

[FREEWILL56]

169. see my post #126

I should also say that a store does not have a right to violate people's rights even if they post it upon enetering the store. If you keep taking the store's supposed rights to do this because it is posted it will end up that further steps will be taken along those lines. From bag searches to emptying your pockets/purses to padding you down and finally strip searches before you are allowed to leave. It may seem trivial, but it is a violation of rights none the less and posting it in a store does not make it legal.
Now along the lines of probable cause would include a detector being setoff as long as it is something that must be done at the checkout by the cashier to acknowledge that it was paid for in its removal. Many of you know dvds do set off many alarms regardless of if paid for and does not constitute probable cause in such cases.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

283. Slippery sloping?

You seem to be suggesting (and correct me if I am wrong) that a store's policy to ask to check your purchase/receipt prior to exiting the store will invariably lead (in a "slippery slope"-like fashion) to further more intrusive searches if we continue to allow these kind of practices? Best Buy has been checking receipts on high priced items for as long as I can remember I haven't seen any evidence that people anywhere are nowadays getting patted down, strip searched, etc. by Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. I think that I would have a real problem if stores were actually doing stuff like THAT unless it turns out that a person had actually been witnessed attempting to steal something in the store. I've also had plenty of experiences with alarms being set off by merchandise that I've just purchased and I've never had any problem with going back and allowing the store to ensure that the item was duly purchased (if I'm even asked to do so-most stores just wave me on through). Stores do have a right to ensure that people don't steal their merchandise and asking to view your purchase/receipt prior to exiting seems like a pretty minor request. I mean, really, WHAT is the big deal with handing over your receipt and opening your bag for a couple of seconds so that the store personnel can ensure that your item(s) are duly purchased? As for violation of rights, I'm not quite sure that I agree that having to demonstrate proof of purchase prior to exiting a store necessarily violates anybody's rights. It may be irritating or annoying to some people but I don't see it as being a violation of our civil liberties. :shrug: Are there any lawyers out there that would care to weigh in on this? And, as I alluded to in my previous post, nobody HAS to shop at any of these stores that have this practice if you find it offensive or view it as a violation of your constitutional rights. Anyway, that is my $0.02. We can certainly agree to disagree.

[mhatrw]

306. Once again, what does it matter whether YOU PERSONALLY think this is "big deal" or not?

This issues at stake are clear and perfectly stark even if you find them minor and/or trivial. Do you actually believe that stores should have the right to detain innocent shoppers who refuse to show their receipts? Do you actually believe that innocent shoppers who have done nothing suspicious have no right to refuse a corporate police search?

If you stick to the issues at hand and stop personalizing, you'll notice that what you are actually saying is that any right you personally don't mind having violated is one that no else should mind having violated. And how self-centered (and authoritarian) is that?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

336. Just offering my own perspective on the issue

I don't believe that I was personalizing and if I was, I'm sorry. I thought that we were all discussing the Circuit City story (it IS a discussion board after all, right?) and offering our own personal opinions about what was reported in the article. I don't think that I was suggesting that other people whom feel differently must accept anything that they don't want to accept. I just thought that we were all offering our own personal perspective on the subject. Once again, if I crossed the line and made any kind of personal attacks on anybody, I certainly apologize. If you and other posters wish to go to stores like Circuit City and challenge their policies and practices, then you are, of course, certainly within your rights to protest in this manner or any other non-violent manner that you desire.

In regards to the substance of your post, I would assume that the reason that the stores ask to see receipts is to ensure that their merchandise is not stolen and that a refusal to provide receipts/allow them to view the contents of your bag that you're getting ready to walk out of their store with might come off as seeming somewhat suspicious to them at which point, should they not have the ability to detain somebody until they are able to ascertain that they, in fact, did NOT steal something? How do stores protect themselves against the theft of items from shoppers whom are NOT "innocent" and how do they sort them out? What safeguards against theft do you think WOULD be more appropriate for stores to use? I know that most stores expect some level of "shrinkage" or theft of their merchandise but that doesn't mean that they can't take some kind of action to lessen it. Security cameras are helpful but when the store is crowded it becomes a lot more difficult to watch everybody (have you ever been out to stores the day after Thanksgiving?). I'm very interested in hearing some other ideas, however. Maybe there ARE some better ideas for companies to implement that are less intrusive and more tolerable to civil rights for ensuring protection against theft. :shrug:

[mhatrw]

354. I don't steal stuff.

And I fail to see why a store's expectation is that I do even though I have never given any store any basis for suspicion. Is it too much to ask for store employees to accost only those customers that they have legitimate reasons to suspect of theft? Isn't that the way most stores do it? Isn't that the way it was always done at all public retail stores until the last decade or two?

[Junkdrawer]

156. Who said they're "liberals/progressives"???

They're anonymous posters on an internet board. There are many, many forums dedicated to giving Kudos to posers who come here and disrupt this board.

[redqueen]

174. Yeah, no kidding... who says anyone who jumps on a

"if a corporation did it, it MUST be wrong" bandwagon is a liberal?

[Junkdrawer]

191. My take is as follows:

If the circumstances portrayed are true:

1.) Circuit City was most definitely in the wrong and may well end up paying out a settlement.

2.) Daring a cop to arrest you will always result in your arrest. Doesn't mean the cop was right. The charges may or may not be dropped.

3.) Michael Amor Righi is a big Ayn Rand fan and most likely a libertarian, not a classic liberal.

[Joe Chi Minh]

250. Yes, it's an indication of their fear of DU's influence.

[LynneSin]

175. Damnit you caught me - I'm a freeper

:eyes:

[Evoman]

176. I never show my recepit. I just say no thanks.

IF its not a big deal to show a receipt, its also no big deal to not show a receipt.

Once I pay for something, its mine. I don't have to show anything. And sorry Bruno, but your store policy means fuck all to me. Story policy is not law. If some manager asshole put up a fight with me, then I would inform him he could keep his story policy, and I wouldn't shop at his store in the future.

Everything starts with baby steps. You people can do whatever the fuck you want, but I'm not going to be stopped from lawfully leaving an establishment by anybody.

[Balbus]

179. Because some private citizens are jackasses.

Remember those idiots that tried to sue Wendy's because of the finger in the chili? Enough said.

[FREEWILL56]

182. Hmmm

You're right, what about that? Should they have asked for a receipt to prove it was bought at Wendy's?

edit to add:

You are right as citizens are jackasses for they complain when it goes too far, but can't see it happening on its initial levels. It's no wonder how the bush administration has gotten away with so much because many of you don't even know your rights are being violated because you don't know what your rights really are.

[FredScuttle]

180. My $0.02

1) This self-important douchebag was itching for a confrontation with the Man and he got it...even though it ruined his family reunion/child's birthday party. He's an inconsiderate clown because his little 4th amendment showdown inconvenienced a lot of people who had nothing to do with this incident.

2) If you don't like the store's policy, don't shop in the fucking store. I'm not on Circuit City's side and I'm demonstrating this by not patronizing their stores.

[ellie]

181. I think it is a stupid policy.

The checkout stands are what, five feet from the door? What do they honestly think you are going to shove in your bag, that the cashier gives you, in that five feet? The cashier's pen? What is there to steal in the area from when you get the bag to when you leave? Not much. It seems to me more of a way to make sure the cashier isn't giving you free stuff.

[conscious evolution]

183. Great post VR

The herd mentality of so many of our fellow citizens is absolutly mindblowing sometimes.
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsVkV3AZqqI

[pitohui]

185. 3 little words: pick your battles

imagine if all the energy spent protesting circuit city's loss prevention program had been expended doing something that really mattered

life is too short for me to fight for the rights of shoplifters to sail out the door unchallenged

sorry, there's a war going on, or didn't you know?

[FREEWILL56]

186. This isn't about defending shoplifters and you know it.

I am all for the prosecuting of shoplifters, but you can't violate the rights of innocent people to do it.

edit to add:

The war is a seperate issue that you can address on the appropriate thread and though it is important, it is not justifiable to say our rights aren't important because we are at war. If the war is that important to you, then why post here on our civil rights that you deem unimportant comparitively? That's the same kind of stupidity that has given muscle to the bush administration being able to spy on American citizens and violating our rights too. Know what your rights are and then you can recognize when they are being violated more clearly. It doesn't matter that the incident seems small to you as our rights are not a small issue.

[HughMoran]

204. You're right - all of this is a waste of good energy

Mostly I could give a crap about showing a receipt - it's part and parcel of the system at Costco - if I don't like it, I can stop shopping there. I don't necessarily want to pay extra to cover the cost of lost goods.

OTOH, depending on my mood, if some store clerk appeared in front of me trying to block my path while in the parking lot, said store clerk would likely be testing the seating comfort of the pavement in short order. There is a reason they stop you at the door - once you leave that store, you are under the juristiction of local law enforcement. If they touch you outside the store, you have the same right to defend yourself as you do with any person assaulting you in a public place.

[FREEWILL56]

209. You are still under the juristiction of local law enforcement.

Those stores themselves do not have the power of law and we are not talking about costco, but any store in general. It was not a costco type thing at all as it was a circuit city as was reported with no signed membership or agreements. The only time the store has any power at all is when there is proof of a crime and then they can do a citizen's arrest as an individual and not a company. A citizen's arrest allows you to hold the criminal for local law enforcement only.

edit to add:

Even costco does not have the right to go this far, but they will void your membership from shopping there if you don't allow them to do this. Selling your rights isn't new as Sony Corp does this to their employees as a condition of employment. You must allow them to access your credit history and crdit card info, your neighbors' opinions of you, your banking records, and a few others that I can't seem to remeber at this time. Sony isn't allone in doing this as most Japanese companies seem to do that here and now some US companies follow suit in doing this also.
It is no big deal showing the receipt to them, but they don't have the right to force you to show one and it proves nothing as I have pointed out before. You may also be one of the many that feel bush's spying doesn't harm anything until they start doing it to you without cause and people like you give them the ability to do this.

[HughMoran]

214. Right - let me clarify my point

I have been caught shoplifting as a kid and I was told by the security personnel that they can hold you within the store until law enforcement arrives since it is private property (or something like that). He said that he could have done nothing if I had made it onto the street (with the exception of attempting a citizens arrest at his own peril), though he could not grab me until I made an attempt to leave the store. As far as a clerk goes, I think you are correct - you can smash their face in if they try to prevent your free movement. I suppose if they had reasonable suspicion that you were shoplifting they could and would feel compelled to stop you. Where I grew up, that could be a dangerous proposition - thus I was mostly referring to stores that had a security department - which is very common in the city. Perhaps we are just making different point here - that is the only point I was trying to make here...

[FREEWILL56]

220. Exactly my point.

They caught you and that gave them the right to hold you, but a receipt not being shown is not good enough. If I misread you at any point sorry.

[HughMoran]

227. Yes I see

Presuming a shopper guilty if they do not show a receipt is a potentially bad situation. It happened to me at WalMart back before I was boycotting the place - I never like that the greeter was actually the eyes and ears of security.

[mhatrw]

307. And what gives them the right to touch you in the store without any cause? n/t

[HughMoran]

390. They can't do that either

Get yer war on toons - lol

[mhatrw]

226. It matters because it happens to YOU every time you shop there

and all YOU have to do to "battle" is refuse to show your receipt.

When they make you show your papers at every checkpoint, what battles will you choose then?

[mondo joe]

242. Which is the "they" you speak of?

The "they" who make you show your receipt is a private entity with - if done properly - a posted policy you should be aware of before entering.

[mhatrw]

261. You are talking out of your posterior.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.legal.moderated/msg/aac30854a1b2745d?hl=en&

The normal principles of contract law require anagreement, and there's no good reason to believe that the shopper has necessarily agreed to the contents of this or that sign, just because he happened to have passed it on the way in. (If you've ever been in a CompUSA, you know it's positively lousy with signs proclaiming this or that wonderful deal. One could easily be forgiven for missing one, however "prominent.")

Signs like this have been pretty consistently declared null and void by courts for decades, though there are a few exceptions. Examples include those "We are not responsible for coats" signs, "We aren't responsible for what happens to your car" in parking lots, etc. Even software shrink-wrap licenses are generally invalid. (That doesn't mean that the software isn't still protected by basic copyright law, though.)

In any case, even if the sign has the full force of law, it doesn't make it into a crime to refuse the search. At the very worst, it makes the refusal a breach of contract, and a breach without any actual damages whatsoever, at that. So as a practical matter, I'd say, no, the sign doesn't affect things at all, really.

[WinkyDink]

213. THANK YOU.

[FREEWILL56]

223. If winkydink was thanking me for my previous responce(209),

then you are welcome.

[WinkyDink]

234. It was to the OP, but to you, as well, come to think of it!

Dang! Maybe I'm just a bee-yotch of an anti-authority type (and I am), but stores are being afforded more and more powers even as we try to throw our money at them!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

230. As someone who worked in retail, I take a different tact

Don't get involved with an idiot. Anyone willing to make such a scene about something like that could just as easily take out a gun and shoot you. It isn't worth it.

Just like the waitress in Ohio at Chilli's or Friday's who got run over by a dine and dasher when she ran out in the parking lot to get the plate or try and stop them.

Too many people are scum nowadays. It's isn't worth it to lose your life for minimum slave wage for such human filth.

Deal with that angle.

[FREEWILL56]

285. You might be right about this:

"Don't get involved with an idiot. Anyone willing to make such a scene about something like that could just as easily take out a gun and shoot you. It isn't worth it.

Just like the waitress in Ohio at Chilli's or Friday's who got run over by a dine and dasher when she ran out in the parking lot to get the plate or try and stop them.

Too many people are scum nowadays. It's isn't worth it to lose your life for minimum slave wage for such human filth."

You just never know how far circuit city might take it. Would they have shot the guy if they had a gun or run him over as they don't recognize rights of others?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

381. Oh, yeah

Right on page 56 of the corporate handbook my bookstore had......it said we could shoot customers if they didn't comply. They used to take us to the firing range to brush up on our skills as well.

[FREEWILL56]

397. I thought so.

[provis99]

233. how did these libertarian trolls get on this website?

Next you'll be complaining about not being able to take guns onto airplanes, because its a violation of your second amendment rights (which it actually is). Or complaining when a bartender throws you out of a bar for being too drunk too serve. Or not being allowed to drive drunk. Or not being allowed to specifically threaten to kill somebody. Yes, all these are violations of your civil rights.

First comes forced showing of store receipts, then next we're all in Big Brother land with RFIC chips on our bums. For those of you who argue slippery slope arguments, I point out that the slippery slope argument is the favorite argument of CONSERVATIVES. Thus we have had the conservative Domino Theory of Communist takeover in Asia, Rick Santorum's slippery slope from gay marriage to man-on-dog sex, to Bush's argument that if we don't fight them in Iraq, we'll be fighting them over here.

Everyone who uses the slippery slope argument to back any point should shut up.

[mhatrw]

243. So you have to be libertarian to care about civil liberties?

I love the "slippery slope" left vs. right litmus test, though. It's about as insightful and meaningful as declaring that anybody who uses an argument by analogy has to be a communist.

[redqueen]

252. Agreed about the 'slippery slope' arguments.

Sometimes they're used logically.

Other times... well...

[LanternWaste]

341. the Slippery Slope Argument is considered a Logical Fallacy

As a matter of fact, I'm under the impressions (from a long-ago Logic course in college) that the Slippery Slope Argument is considered a Logical Fallacy...

But then again, I'd bet the professor who taught me that probably shopped at Circuit City... :)

[mhatrw]

356. It is a logical fallacy when the "slippery slope" is characterized as inevitable.

It is a perfectly logical and reasonable method of discussion when used to merely point out that smaller and seemingly trivial issues often exhibit the same basic principles and patterns as larger, more important issues.

[LanternWaste]

359. What you say v. what my college Professor said...

What you say v. what my college Professor said...

This is gonna be a tough call for me to make. Which to believe... which to believe...

I may hafta get back to you on this-- it's a tough decision to make.

[mhatrw]

364. What did he say then? Could you explain to us why it's a logical fallacy

to illustrate that the principles of smaller issues are sometimes analogous with those of bigger issues?

For example, if someone says, "Why is it any skin off your nose to show your receipt if you are not shoplifting?" and I point out that this is the exact same argument that Bushistas use to defend unwarranted domestic spying, am I committing a logical fallacy? If so, how so?

[RamboLiberal]

238. Riddle me this - My state allows concealed carry

How can they post and bar me from carrying a concealed gun in to their store? That's my 2nd amendment rights. Bet a lot of you who are protesting the receipt check will back the store owner on this.

BTW, on the receipt check - I don't get worked up about it. It's no biggie to me if that's their way of trying to prevent shoplifing. Yeah, I'd have a problem if an employee followed me out of the store and demanded to check the merchandise and receipt.

Oh and on the no carry posted. Well I either decide I will not patronize them or if I really want to shop/go there I either ignore their rule and take my chances or I don't carry.

[FREEWILL56]

260. Also read my responce in post 258,

but as to the carry no guns in the store I can't say as I'm not in a state that allows them at all without a permit. I claim no expertise in the area of guns as my comments were directed in the area of the receipts, but if I had to guess I'd say it had to do with private property. Will you tell us why in your state's opinion that it is so? Maybe you think these are the same thing, but they aren't because let's say you allow many people on your property for a garage sale. Do you not hypothetically have a right to stop somebody from going onto your property armed? It is the same thing as a business because both are private property opened to the public. They should have you give the gun to them while you shop so that you may still protect yourself off of the private property. On that same scenario you don't have the right to hold somebody illegally because they might fail to produce a receipt for you or to search them. You wouldn't do that anyway as you'd probably remember who you sold what to on a small scale like that, but hey maybe your other half sold it while you were on a bathroom break too.

[jakefrep]

244. Because I'm against shoplifting....

...and its consequences (higher prices) more than I'm against "corporations".

This is a reasonable practice for a purveyor of expensive and portable goods, not an infringement of my rights.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, not everything is a conspiracy!

[FREEWILL56]

258. Curious,

how does that lower the costs? I believe it raises the costs to do that as they have to pay somebody to be there to stop everybody to show they have receipts. I certainly did not call this a conspiracy either, but stopping somebody and holding them without cause is against the law receipt shown or not. I also pointed out that showing a receipt is not proof you didn't steal anything either so please fill me in on how it works for you.

[mhatrw]

267. They don't trust their own underpaid & poorly treated cashiers.

That is what the whole policy is about.

[FREEWILL56]

274. Quite possibly.

Even if that were the reason, I still don't see how that stops the theft, keeps costs down, or does not violate the rights of the consumer to pass without showing a receipt or face incarceration as that is not a crime. Most thefts in business go out the back door from crooked employees and not the front anyway. Some are the low paid employees, but in my opinion most are at higher levels in the company that are committing this crime as I did expose some of it at that particular company I had once worked for. Heads did roll, but the highest up of the criminals did not get fired at that time and was given benefit of the doubt that was undeserved. Yes, those just under that one became scapegoats. I was not management either and I took a big risk at that time in exposing it all, but then again I was only risking a low paying part time cashiers position. For the record, my not being there a few years later had nothing to do with that incident and some in management actually wanted me to stay because they appreciated my hard work and honesty.

[jakefrep]

275. They have to cover the cost of lost goods

hence higher prices. And lost goods at a place like Circuit City cost more than the wages of the guy who's charged with checking receipts.

Get over it already.

[FREEWILL56]

281. The covering of the costs of stolen merchandise

was never in question. The legality of forced receipt showing is and placing personnel there to do this does not stop the theft of items or slow it down so it is a wasted extra cost with myself at a loss to understand how you figure that extra person even comes close to being justifying their wages. I am allowed to state my opinions on this and you are free to show something a bit more intelligently viable than get over it in defence of circuit city's actions.

[jakefrep]

284. I'm sorry, but this clown isn't Rosa fucking Parks.

The store person was just doing his job and this guy chose to be a dickhead.

You're the one who needs to come up with something intellectually viable.

[FREEWILL56]

289. Methinks you're in reverse with this.

So the guy may have pushed the issue of it being a violation of his rights, but in your opinion he's a dickhead for it, while the store personnel go outside after him because he didn't show a receipt is doing his job even though there are laws against the store personnel from doing this very thing. This might explain what comes from thy mouth as what's up is down and what's back is front.

[sandnsea]

263. They never had freedom

So they don't know what it's like to be trusted to walk freely on the planet.

Why do they not understand that crime keeps rising as the suspiciousness of society rises? Well that one I can't figure out.

[lonestarnot]

271. I just don't fucking know.

[jberryhill]

277. Good Question

It does seem that a lot of DU'ers support the unfettered right to buy Chinese made Disney merchandise in whatever manner they see fit.

[FREEWILL56]

282. Seeing as how DUers shop for Chinese products

is not the subject matter being discussed, I'll bet you had lots of trouble in school because you didn't pay attention in class assuming you were there. :think: :dunce:

[Warren DeMontague]

286. "There's no law that says I can't piss all over this toilet seat!"

That's right. There may not be.

But if you walk into a public bathroom with some kind of fucked up chip on your shoulder and the clear intent to piss all over the seat so that some shlub who may happen to work for a Corporation has to clean it up---

you're still an asshole.

Clear enough?

[FREEWILL56]

292. I guess they caught you doing that didn't they.

[Warren DeMontague]

315. Haryuk Haryuk Haryukkkk.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

293. WTF

Does that have to do with my OP?

Nobody was pissing on anything..

Someone just stood up for his rights..

Why do you have a problem with that?

[FREEWILL56]

297. He was trying to slander me is all

at least in his screwed up way anyhow. No law about peeing that way that I am aware of, but then they didn't throw you in jail for it now did they? Hmmm. maybe they did for health department law violations. His comments to and about me has ZER0 to do with the initial subject matter for sure. I wash my hands of him.

[Warren DeMontague]

316. I was trying to slander YOU? Cap'n Solipsism, I don't have the faintest idea who the fuck you ARE.

I know that may be hard to fathom. But try.

AFAIK, the first post I've addressed to YOU in my entire life I wrote five seconds ago, and the gist of it was "welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay".

Hmmm.

I think some people's reactions in this thread are telling- yes, the man at Best Buy who asks you to show him your reciept is specifically targeting YOU, Fred V. Flooglehatz 118 Mulberry Place West Bend Idaho, because he knows you have those nasty thoughts about your neighbor when she's bending over to prune her rose bushes and so after stealing your brain waves with his CIA thought eating machine he decided you're probably a thief, too.

Sorry, dude. It's not about YOU. The point of that post was, some people come into retail establishments with a "problem", a chip on their shoulder, an attitude and a desire to make life as miserable as possible for the people who work there- be they the cashiers, the waiters, or the folks who are making sure shit isn't being stolen- and many of them seem to dress it up in self-righteous bullshit about "sticking it to the man". But they aren't sticking it to "the man", they're sticking it to folks who generally are making min. wage or maybe a bit more. I know, because I was one of those folks for many years, and I know EXACTLY the type of customer that this bratty kid at Circuit City is.

Get it?

[Warren DeMontague]

318. Actually, let's see what you yourself had to say at the top of the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1746129&mesg_id=1746230

I stopped showing my receipts quite a while ago..

When I learned there was no legal requirement to do so.

I'm hoping that someone detains me because I'm going to sue the crap out of them and I could use the money.

I won't stop when told and if they try to block my exit in any way I'm going to keep moving and let them try to force me. There are enough security cameras around these days that the entire incident almost certainly will be recorded.

So- you say you pretty much deliberately go into stores with a 'fuck you' attitude to the people who work there, 'you can't make me show you anything', yet you still shop at these stores.. hoping that as you give the finger to whatever security procedures they have in place, someone will do something wrong so that you can "sue the crap out of them".

If you hate these stores so much, why do you bother to patronize them at all? Oh, right, because maybe someone will fuck up and you'll get a lawsuit out of the deal. Whooopeeee!

Let me ask you something- when you go to a restaurant, do you tip the people who work there? You know, you don't have to. There is no legal requirement that you do so. Same with ordering a pizza. Tip that guy? No law says you have to.

No, there is no legal requirement to behave like a decent person. And believe me, I know from my many years of working retail, there are a lot of really awful fucking customers out there, whose sole purpose in existence is seemingly to make life miserable for those scraping by on a retail existence.

And someone who goes into a store with a big, snotty chip on his shoulder, hoping that someone will fuck up so he can file a lawsuit?

Well, what would YOU call that person, if you worked there?

THAT is what my previous post was about. Get it, don't get it, I don't care. I've said my piece, and I'm not changing my mind. I'm done with this fucking topic.

[mhatrw]

308. Clear as mud.

What harm or damage does an innocent shopper cause said "shlub" by refusing to show a receipt?

Must one submit to a beating just because some low level "shlub" has been tasked with administering it?

[Warren DeMontague]

314. Oh, for fuck's sake.

Showing a reciept isn't "submitting to a beating". (I guess you don't shop at Costco, then, because they "beat" everyone who tries to leave that store)

I think it is perfectly legitimate for stores to do what they can to reduce what are epidemic rates of theft and shoplifting. I should know, I spent years working shit retail jobs and I know from extensive personal experience that some people will steal anything that isn't nailed down. They aren't robin hood heroes 'stickin' it to the man', either.

In short, I disagree with you. Waaaaaaaah! I'm a fascist! :eyes:

[mhatrw]

320. In short, you think every shopper is guilty until proven innocent. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

322. I think that if people don't want to be subjected to the scrutiny of store security

they should buy shit online.

Someone is stealing shit from these stores- how, precisely, are the folks whose job it is to stop it -at a giant box store full of anonymous customers- supposed to know that it's not you?

Do you think it's legitimate for a business to try to stop shoplifting at all?

[mhatrw]

324. If you have probable cause, then detain me.

If you don't, please refrain from insulting me by asking me to comply with a voluntary search. And if you must insult me even though you have no cause to do so, you damn well better not detain me when I politely decline your request to search my bags.

[Warren DeMontague]

339. No, *I* won't be involved at all, because my years of working shitty retail jobs and having

to deal with folks like you on a tiresome, daily basis are long behind me, praise jeeeebus.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

326. They have a time honored method of catching shoplifters

See them take the item..

That's known as "probable cause".

[jberryhill]

287. Corporations like, uh, Disney - who had Chinese make his precious purchase? /nt

My take:

You go to a big chain store and buy a piece of licensed Disney software made in China, then don't come crying to me about the "big bad corporations".

This guy was the one PAYING them to get what he got.

[FREEWILL56]

294. Let me get this straight.

He is buying Chines made goods(which you don't know that) at that store(in this case circuit city) so anybody shopping there deserves their rights to be violated. Let's not overlook the tons of Chinese products you have and not even know it, but even if you scrutinized your stuff that you have none of this, what's to stop any other store from doing this to anybody else including you buying American as if one can do it they all can and they'll say you deserved it for allowing it in the first place. Guess what that makes you?

[jberryhill]

295. It makes me someone

Who isn't so selfish as to find a way to make my half-sister cry on her birthday simply because Dad got on with his life after a divorce.

He was "invited to Dad's for Labor Day".

Found out it was the birthday of Dad & Second Wife's daughter.

Managed to steal back the attention he didn't get when he was her age. Look at the family picture. Do the math. The "oppression" he was fighting had nothing to do with the store, or the cops.

Oh, and it also makes me happy to suffer the slight inconvenience of showing a receipt when I buy my slave-labor produced goods with onerous copyright licenses, and glad I'm in the country where we buy this imported crap from corporate chain stores and aren't chained to the factory benches where they are produced.

I am a hypocrite, but I do not flaunt that as a virtue like this moron.

You want to fight the batttle of the Big Box store, then I'll tell you what - you go back when you aren't drafting children into your crusade as unwilling participants.

[FREEWILL56]

299. I don't care if he is scum, that's not the subject matter here.

Even scum has rights and looking at this objectively the store proved to be exactly what the man set out to show they were. Law breaking SCUM! It's a good thing you weren't around during the signing of the constitution as you'd have put stipulations like only if he isn't a Chinese buying scumball or those that buy from certain stores are not disallowed from being subject to illegal searches and that they can be illegally placed into custody without real due process of law. Except on the weekend I guess with your strange analogies or whenever that party was supposed to be.
Rights used to be rights until people ignored them, mangled them, and threw them away!!:wtf: :banghead:

[Ravy]

313. If only the Bill of Rights had list them as restrictions against

Governmental *AND* Circuit City's abuse, we would probably not be having this discussion.

[mhatrw]

310. Great lawyering, jberryhill.

Way to avoid the actual legal principle at stake by demonizing any individual who challenges corporate authority!

When exit guards ask for my receipt, I always politely decline. Would you care to demonize my behavior as well?

[LynneSin]

330. Challenge Corporate authority?

:rofl:

You want to challenge corporate authority - STOP BUYING THEIR SHIT!

I quit going to Circuit City over a year ago when they fired their most senior employees and made them re-interview for lesser paying jobs.

And btw, the guy is a rich fuck who is soliciting donations for his legal funds. Google it or just look for RamboLiberal's thread

I call this man scum - not a hero of the working class.

I find it sad that some DUers are turning into causeheads jumping on any crusade they perceive is a liberal cause. We have a blog written by a person who gave HIS ACCOUNT of the situation. Now let's check with the police report, the store report and any witnesses (including his family) to see what really happen.

I think this is less about violations of his civil liberties and more like a bleeding heart story in hopes to sucker a few liberals in sending him money.

[mhatrw]

334. What does it matter about the guy's motives?

What does it matter if the guy didn't cry at his mother's funeral, etc.? You are just using some transparent lawyer tricks used to sway dumb juries in order to avoid the actual legal issues at hand.

The issues at stake are clear and perfectly stark even if you find them minor and/or trivial. Do you actually believe that stores should have the right to detain innocent shoppers who refuse to show their receipts? Yes or no? Do you actually believe that innocent shoppers who have done nothing suspicious have no right to refuse a corporate police search? Yes or no?

[jberryhill]

344. Read my analysis below

And please provide a link to a case in which you've ever stood up for anyone's rights to do anything.

Jedi mind tricks, my ass.

[jberryhill]

332. Challenge Corporate Authority....

You are so cute.

I don't care what you do with your receipts.

I will, however, demonize anyone who makes children props in his morality play.

And I will laugh my ass off at someone buying Disney products in a chain store while going on about "corporate authority". Let me make it clear to you - I am an IP lawyer who works for a lot of individuals and small businesses. As far as I am concerned Disney is the evil empire of corporate intellectual property rights, and I am not going to muster a whole lot of sympathy for some guy making an absurd point about "civil liberties" while feeding the "corporate authority" monster out of his own wallet. If you don't see the irony there, then that's just too bad for you.

And posting in idle moments on a web forum is hardly "lawyering", but if you want to thread stalk, I've posted on the legal issues on this thing several times. "Lawyering" is what I do when, say, a city government tried to shut down a website criticizing the police department (http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/97076.htm). So, until you do something real on behalf of someone whose rights are being attacked, you can shove off with the personal comments, mmm-kay?

This guy's "issues" are transparent, and they have more to do with emotional tension in his family than they do with the law or corporations.

[mhatrw]

335. My point is that you are attacking the guy who got arrested to avoid the actual legal issues.

The legal issues at stake are clear and perfectly stark even if you find them minor and/or trivial. Do you actually believe that stores should have the right to detain innocent shoppers who refuse to show their receipts? Yes or no? Do you actually believe that innocent shoppers who have done nothing suspicious have no right to refuse a corporate police search? Yes or no?

What you think about Disney and/or the circumstances surrounding the individual who brought these issues to light is not the point and you know it.

[jberryhill]

340. You are avoiding my other posts

In which I have said, at length, that:

1. Verifying the receipt is a legitimate part of the checkout procedure, and is the posted policy of the store. They are not suspecting him of shoplifting, they are confirming the performance of the checkout clerk.

2. His behavior of blowing off the receipt check (note - not a bag search, a receipt check), and then proceeding to a waiting vehicle at the curb, may legitimately invoke the Ohio merchant detention law which authorizes a merchant to detain a customer in the store or in the immediate vicinity of the store in order to investigate further on probable cause. There were more circumstances in the "totality of circumstances" test at work than merely refusing the search. And I'll further say that I interview clients in legal matters every single day. In every situation there are "good facts" and "bad facts". Making sure to get all of the facts is difficult, even in an interactive interview situation. A one-sided bravado-laden and self-congratulatory account is useless for this purpose utterly.

3. He got into the car and at that point was free to leave. He opened the car door to engage in further discussion with the store employees. He also did that voluntarily. By that time, he could have secreted a stolen item in the car. The behavior of going to the car. Getting in to leave. Shutting the door, and THEN opening the door to further argue his point is another sequence of actions that go into the merchant detention "probable cause" brew of fact. It was not until after this point that he was detained under the Ohio merchant detention law. His account is full of laws that support his argument - it is interesting he doesn't mention that one.

4. His rights as to the police were waived because he voluntarily requested the officer to investigate. This was not a random street stop by a policeman, he invited the investigation, and waived whatever right he had to otherwise refuse to cooperate with the investigation he invited. This is no different from consenting to entry of a cop into your home, and then objecting to a "warrantless search" if the cop sees something. The police officer was going to have to investigate at THIS GUY'S invitation. No, you don't have a right to call the police and then "remain silent" or other crap like that. Bone up on basic CrimPro - waiver of rights is easy. If you don't want to deal with police, you don't invite them to deal with you. That is brain-dead basic. Again, his citation to what a cop can require in a default non-consent situation, is totally irrelevant. THAT is why the charge was obstructing an investigation. YOU call a cop to investigate, you have consented to investigation, you do not micro-manage or control that investigation. It is also implicit that the cop is there to investigate "the call" and "a possible false report".

The point that he is an asshole who resents his father's second family, and did his level best to jerk around his half sister is indeed the point. You can talk about legal principles from dawn till midnight if you want, but if you think that has anything to do with being a decent human being, you are kidding yourself. Because these "evil corporations" are born and grown from the very seed stock of selfish pigs of individuals with no concern for others. If he wanted to make a test case, then he could have come back later and left the children out of it. You don't give a shit about children, that's your prerogative - but I will tell you that of all people who have serious civil rights issues, children are a leading group. Those kids in the car were the hostages here to this guy's emotional drama from his dad's first marriage. Who do they get to sue?

Finally - the Disney thing. I don't know if you are familiar with what this company has done to intellectual property law, foreign labor law, and a host of other things. I don't buy their products or watch their programs. So this guy's casual support of a company that has screwed with more people's rights than a Circuit City store ever will, is the crowning irony on top of this guy's fund-raising play act.

[FREEWILL56]

345. Yes, he finally answered and is saying that:

1> The store has a legal right to make you cough up a receipt and pronounce all guilty of theft until proven innocent and that posted signs will waive your rights.

2> That many people do get into cars at a curb, but the only difference is that he elected to not be treated as a criminal by being forced to show a receipt is cause for invoking some law making him a suspect of law breaking.

3> That it was his own fault that the store personnel were egging him on and harrassing him right at his car.

4> That anytime you call the police to protect you that you waive all of your rights.

If you are an attorney, you need disbarred. Everybody established that the guy is a jerk and first class ass, but he still has rights as this could happen to anybody including you because what if you get a cell phone call and the judge wants to see you right away on a case and you in your hurry forgot to volunteer your receipt. Oops, now they are, in your opinion, in their rights to further hold you there and charge you when you ask the police to help protect you from your rights being violated that they in turn charge you for your refusal to show the receipt to the store.
Rights apply to everybody or you have no rights at all. The real asses are those that think their moral judgement of somebody(no right to trial here) can supercede anybody's rights.

[jberryhill]

363. If you are an attorney, you need disbarred

And you need further lessons in reading and in writing.

The thinking part. Dunno if you can get help with that.

So, you are going to go to a store and try this out... when? Or are you a bit too much of a keyboard commando to do anything about anyone's rights, let alone your own.

[mhatrw]

347. Ummm ...

1. Verifying the receipt is a legitimate part of the checkout procedure, and is the posted policy of the store. They are not suspecting him of shoplifting, they are confirming the performance of the checkout clerk.

They can TRY to do whatever want for any reason they want. The issue comes to a head when the customer refuses to comply. In this case, the store has several legal recourses including denying the customer future service. However, the store cannot detain the customer without probable cause and simply refusing to submit to receipt check/bag search is not probable cause to suspect theft.

2. His behavior of blowing off the receipt check (note - not a bag search, a receipt check), and then proceeding to a waiting vehicle at the curb, may legitimately invoke the Ohio merchant detention law which authorizes a merchant to detain a customer in the store or in the immediate vicinity of the store in order to investigate further on probable cause.

A receipt check IS a bag search. What are they checking the receipt against if not what is in the bag? Show me a single case in which simply refusing a receipt check/bag search was ruled probable cause for detainment. That's a blatant Catch-22, as in "we don't have any cause to search you, but your refusal to let us gives us probable cause."

There were more circumstances in the "totality of circumstances" test at work than merely refusing the search.

Maybe. Maybe not. But not a single criterion that you used to trash of this guy (Disney, birthday, libertarian, selfish asshole, etc.) has a whit to do with this issue. The only thing that matters is whether or not the store had probable cause to suspect a theft before they attempted to detain this guy.

3. He got into the car and at that point was free to leave. He opened the car door to engage in further discussion with the store employees. He also did that voluntarily. By that time, he could have secreted a stolen item in the car. The behavior of going to the car. Getting in to leave. Shutting the door, and THEN opening the door to further argue his point is another sequence of actions that go into the merchant detention "probable cause" brew of fact. It was not until after this point that he was detained under the Ohio merchant detention law. His account is full of laws that support his argument - it is interesting he doesn't mention that one.

So opening your car door and/or engaging in discussion with somebody who is talking to you is now probable cause to suspect theft? :rofl: Is your real name Hamilton Burger or something?

4. His rights as to the police were waived because he voluntarily requested the officer to investigate. This was not a random street stop by a policeman, he invited the investigation, and waived whatever right he had to otherwise refuse to cooperate with the investigation he invited. This is no different from consenting to entry of a cop into your home, and then objecting to a "warrantless search" if the cop sees something. The police officer was going to have to investigate at THIS GUY'S invitation. No, you don't have a right to call the police and then "remain silent" or other crap like that. Bone up on basic CrimPro - waiver of rights is easy. If you don't want to deal with police, you don't invite them to deal with you. That is brain-dead basic. Again, his citation to what a cop can require in a default non-consent situation, is totally irrelevant. THAT is why the charge was obstructing an investigation. YOU call a cop to investigate, you have consented to investigation, you do not micro-manage or control that investigation. It is also implicit that the cop is there to investigate "the call" and "a possible false report".

Have I ever disputed this? If you call the cops to investigate, you let them investigate. Whether or not this guy met that standard is an issue that I don't care about. It's sheep who use every trick in the book to defend an encroaching corporate police state that get my goat.

The point that he is an asshole who resents his father's second family, and did his level best to jerk around his half sister is indeed the point.

Yes, this and the evil that is Disney have everything to do with whether the store had probable cause cause to detain him! :rofl:

[jberryhill]

362. Laugh all you want

Your response to point 1, as well as much of the rest, is irrelevant to what I wrote.

Imagine how silly I am going to look in a few months when this guy gets a judgment against the city, because all of the top civil rights attornies are going to beat a path to his door to take this on contingency.


So opening your car door and/or engaging in discussion with somebody who is talking to you is now probable cause to suspect theft?


Is that what I said? No.

But you can do the same thing in any number of stores in your area.

You refuse to do this because you are a coward and a hypocrite who has never fought for anyone's rights in any tangible way.

[mhatrw]

366. So now the issue is ME personally?

You appear to have some major issues with losing gracefully.

[jberryhill]

378. LOL

Yes, that's the problem with the guy in this story! :rofl:

[mhatrw]

384. Except he was legally in the right while your arguments are not. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

319. Someone needs to start a smoking ban thread so the crowd comparing this dude to Rosa Parks has

somewhere to go when this bastard gets too long to load.

C'mon. I know that's where I've seen some of your names, before.

Do you know what? Not only does Circuit City make people show their reciepts, they don't let people smoke in the store, either! HOLY FUCK, BATMAN, IT'S FULL-ON FASCISM!

:silly::crazy::7

[The Vinyl Ripper]

329. You know just about all the time I find myself in agreement with you;..

Particularly about the drug war.

But this time I think you are wrong.

I don't like the idea of training our citizens to be meek sheep that will not stand up for their rights.

Someone else put it this way: There are no small battles in the fight for our freedoms.

I agree with that..

[Warren DeMontague]

343. I get worried when I agree with anyone 100%, around here.

I understand the point. But I think there's a time and a place for everything, and concepts like being a 'meek sheep' are situational. I think if someone is walking down the street and cops demand to see id for no reason, it's a good idea for people to know their rights. I think if cops show up at someone's door, it's a good idea for them to understand that the cops need a warrant. etc.

But in the specific example of a big box retail establishment, I have trouble believing that Best Buy or Circuit City are somehow participating in some grand conspiracy to condition people to accept authority. What they're trying to do is cut down on shoplifting, which is epidemic. Comparing it to wiretapping or this dude to Rosa Parks; it's just silly. There is a clear reason for what they do, it's transparent, and it doesn't carry larger privacy implications beyond "we want to make sure you're not stealing shit from our store". I understand that some people get offended by that; but I'm of the opinion that when I walk into a big box corporate store, I don't expect the people there to know me personally.. like I said upthread, some people are stealing from these stores- how is the staff supposed to know it's not you?

And clearly my views on this are colored by years of working retail jobs, some of which were made miserable by people who -this was obvious- really had nothing better to do than deliberately cause trouble, start shit or generally 'test' the folks who were working in whatever particular establishment. At first it presents an interesting sociological phenomenon- but after a few years of it, day in and out, it gets real old.

I understand that people are not required by law to stop for a receipt check and store staff can't detain people.. but I still think that for anyone who voluntarily patronizes a business, it shouldn't be too onerous to comply with whatever relatively minor measures they have in-store to keep things running smoothly. People stand in line at the cash register, too, but I don't know if that means they're being conditioned to line up for the execution-man. In short, I don't believe it has the larger implications to society that you do. People are conditioned to take orders from cops and military personell- they're not conditioned to take orders from people in Target staff shirts.

That's all.

[Buns_of_Fire]

325. Hey, does anyone here have some spare popcorn?

:popcorn:

[FREEWILL56]

401. Can you show these idiots proof that you bought that popcorn?

They think I'd have a right to make you show this for you don't own anything and are a thief if you can't prove otherwise is pure bull shit.

[Hepburn]

328. Years and years ago....like over 30 years ago...

...my husband and I were shopping at an upscale store for Mother's Day presents for my mother and grandmother. All the rage at that time were polyester pantsuits and matching blouses. So, I was going around the ladies department and picking up matching items to make outfits for my mom and my grandmother.

We take everything to the cash register, pay for everything, and have the two outfits boxed so that when I get them home, I can put wrapping paper on them and we will be all set for Mother's Day. As we leave the store, we are detained by the store police and led away and accused of having items on us for which we did not pay. On the very top of each gift box were the respective receipts for EVERYTHING.

The store paid dearly for their mistake.

[Orsino]

331. I think it's insulting.

They can place all the cameras they want, anywhere outside of the rest rooms, and they want to train us to submit at the door?

"If you insist on seeing my receipt, you may accompany me to a register, where I'll return this, my final purchase at your store. I will wait until your manager is present. If you believe that I am a thief, I ask that you call the police immediately."

[EV_Ares]

333. Iam dumbfounded by the question. What makes you think that

you can set the policies of a privatly owned store. Also, if you don't want to show a receipt which certainly has been proven not a burdensome request by any meanas and you should go elsewhere. Did they drag you into their store?

I would not want to be the one to go to court and tell them I don't believe I have to show a receipt before going out of the store.

Besides it is not that uncommon and more stores are doing it because of theft.

Liberals and Progressives in most cases, I would think would use their time and energy on more important matters than one such as this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

337. Once again and very slowly

They can ask

You can politely refuse

If they cross any line like forcing you to submit, they just crossed an important line and they are liable

The only recourse a store has when you refuse, LEGALLY THAT IS, is to refuse you service in the future

Is this clear enough for you?

Or do you need it even more simplified?

Just in case

They can ask

YOu can say no

Yes it is that simple

[ProdigalJunkMail]

342. whooohoooo n/t

[EV_Ares]

346. Once again and very slowly to you & appears cannnot get it simple

enough. Yes you can say no, very simple. I will wait for you to show us where it is illegal for any of these stores to have a policy where they are not allowed to look at a receipt.

Once again, very slowly, go on and take them to court and come back and let us know how you come out.

Once again, don't go there if you don't like their store polices.

[mhatrw]

348. It's not illegal to have a policy to ask for a receipt check/bag inspection.

What is illegal is to falsely imprison an innocent shopper simply for not complying with your receipt check/bag inspection policy. That is blatantly illegal. A store is only allowed to detain a customer when there is probable cause to believe the customer is shoplifting, and the simple refusal to submit to a receipt check/bag inspection does not constitute probable cause.

If a store falsely imprisons an innocent customer without probable cause, the customer will win any decision in court.

Is all this clear?

[EV_Ares]

349. Is all this clear? Yes, this post has been clear from the beginning

As far as what is illegal and legal, we have heard one side of this story. They evidently felt they had probable cause with the person's attitude and refusal to show a receipt of which I would think would be giving them such and who evidently was making a scene about it all. It was on store property and the police were there.

Now, is all that clear? I hope so because there are certainly more important things going on than a post like this about an individual just trying to cause a scene about a sales receipt. I am done with this.

I would say you need to take up this person's cause and do those things and then take them to court. I just wish I could be there to watch you make your case. Also, you have the option of going to another store if you don't like their rules and policy.

With more and more stores doing the receipt thing, I would say overall most people are abiding by it with no problem. Only those who want to create a problem for themselves.

[mhatrw]

350. The point is that, legally, receipt/bag inspections must always be voluntary.

So why does one need to shop elsewhere when one has the legal option to simply decline to submit to a policy one doesn't like? Isn't that equivalent to "if you don't like this country, move to China"?

Again, the standard for probable cause of suspecting shoplifting is doing something that looks like shoplifting. This does not include simply refusing to submit to a receipt/bag inspection. Nor does this include having a bad attitude about being coerced to submit receipt/bag inspection. Nor does this include "making a scene" when the receipt/bag inspector tries to block your legitimate and legally protected right to move freely.

And please feel free to move on to another thread. I am not trying to detain you here.

[FREEWILL56]

355. I'm sorry to say the fools just don't get it.

Rights apply to everybody or you have no rights at all. The real asses are those that think their moral judgement of somebody(no right to trial here) can supercede anybody's rights.
Noting that they are giving the companies the right to force us to show receipts when no such right or law exists signs posted or not is beyond me. This goes back to the original question of:
"Why do so many liberals/progressives take the side of corporations against a private citizen?"

[EV_Ares]

352. And the point is, the store has the right to adopt their policies as they

see fit. And what makes you think the store did not have the right to handle this situation in a manner as needed. Do you have all the facts of this case or just the person who didn't like the store policy.

The store employee is not an agent of the government, the Fourth Amendment does not apply. The store is not compelled to abide by Fourth Amendment requirements, including the need for a warrant or probable cause to search. His search does not violate your Fourth Amendment rights. The course of action to take is just to comply with the store's policy, and if you feel the store’s policy is overbearing, take your business elsewhere.

As I said, take the cause up because I doubt the ACLU is going to devote their time to something like this. I am sure they will use their time and energy to the worthwhile causes they usually handle. You said why do you have to take your business elsewhere, why does the store have to put up with you. They don't.

[FREEWILL56]

357. Stores do not have the right

to supercede citizen's rights in this case. I guess if the store told you in order to leave that you had to spin in a circle 3 times you'd do it because it's posted and is trivial and if you didn't you are only a trouble maker deserving punishment by law? Sorry, but they don't have that right, but they do have the right to ask you to leave and not shop there again. This is in no way as serious as the store implying that you are a thief if you don't prove otherwise either and they don't have the right that way either forcing the showing of a receipt with the force of law.

[EV_Ares]

360. The store does have that right and I will tell you the same thing. If

you think they don't then go ahead and try it and take them to court. That is all there is to it. And you too have the right to go to another store. What makes you think they should have to conform to your wishes out of all their customers.

Take them to court. LOL.

[mhatrw]

368. No store has the right to detain you against your will without cause.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why does this distress you so? If you really want the laws to be changed to give stores such rights, I suggest you lobby your state legislature.

[mhatrw]

358. I've never claimed that this is a Fourth Amendment issue.

As I've stated clearly, the issue is false imprisonment. False imprisonment means detaining an innocent person against his will.

A store cannot detain a customer against his will unless the store has probable cause to suspect shoplifting. The mere refusal to submit to a receipt/bag inspection does not constitute probable cause. Nor does unwarranted suspicion (as in "we just thought he was guilty") constitute probable cause. The standard for probable cause for suspecting shoplifting is perceiving the customer doing something that looks like shoplifting.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm

Probable Cause Steps

To establish a solid base for probable cause, and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should be follow before detaining someone suspected of shoplifting:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

Does that sound ANYTHING like simply refusing to submit to a receipt/bag inspection to you?

This issue is perfectly cut and dried legally. Is there anything about it that you still don't understand?

[EV_Ares]

361. I know you didn't mention the Fourth Admendment but you were talking

about the receipt and searching. A police officer has to abide by the Fouerth but not a store. It does not apply here so they have the right to search if they want.

You never answered my question of what you are basing your allegations on that the store did anything illegal. The only thing I have seen here is what the person complaining said. I haven't seen Circuit City's side of this yet.

[mhatrw]

367. Again, unless a store has probable cause to suspect shoptlifting, the store

has no legal right to detain a customer against his will. This has nothing to do with the specifics of the case. I am simply stating a general legal principle.

There is nothing in the account that even remotely suggests that the store had ANY cause (much less probable cause) to suspect shoplifting. But I suppose anything is possible.

[EV_Ares]

371. And I say that if you had Circuit City's account there probably was every

reason to detain this person if they did. First of all it all started with the refusal to show a receipt which the store had every right to ask for. We don't even know what this person did before or afterwords. I am sure the store did not go looking for a problem. It really does amaze me that someone would think they could set store policy or rules just for them.

You and I don't even know what really took place which is why I said this was nothing more than someone who wanted to cause a scene for whatever reason and they got what they deserved.

Stores such as Circuit City and Best Buy along with others don't go out detaining people or look for ways to cause this type of a problem unless they have to.

This person wanted to cause a scene and that basically is what happened. They can take them to court and you can go look this up and get information on it. They aren't going to win anything. Unless, the store really did just imprison or harm them in some manner without any cause whatsoever. It appears this person gave them cause but you nor I have any facts just a story from this individual.

Enjoyed talking with you on this but now I am going to look at something with some importance. Have a good day.

I still think you should take up this person's cause and go to court with them on this.

[mhatrw]

374. If the whole thing STARTED with the guy's refusal to show his receipt

as you state, then there could not have been probable cause.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm

Probable Cause Steps

To establish a solid base for probable cause, and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should be follow before detaining someone suspected of shoplifting:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

Does that sound ANYTHING like simply refusing to submit to a receipt/bag inspection to you?

[FREEWILL56]

369. Stores don't have to observe other people's rights?????????

Civil rights aren't made just for the government or the police to follow and it applies to all and is the law. Nobody is allowed to violate somebody elses civil rights not even corporations.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :think: :dunce:

edit to add:

If you believe that is so then you are saying if you feel like it you can falsely imprison somebody. When are you going to put that to the test as I want to see your face when you go to jail. I will travel to see it too so let me know where.
Also note that the very next time I go to Walmart I am not going to show my receipt for if they want to accuse me of stealing based on that I will have a field day with it in court.
You are proof of why our rights are allowed to diminish or be infringed upon because of your own ignorance of the law. FOOLS!!!

[EV_Ares]

372. Who said anything about any civil rights being violated?

Hey, just go around and refuse to abide by the stores policies. Do whatever you want on their property. Nobody is stopping you.

[FREEWILL56]

376. Store policies DO NOT CARRY THE WEIGHT OF LAW

in overiding the civil rights of people!!!!!!!!!!! They cannot force somebody to produce a receipt as this is assuming they are guilty of shoplifting unless they can prove otherwise and they cannot falsely imprison you for that failure in producing it as not producing a receipt is not a crime or proof of a crime even if they post signs saying they can overide your rights in this case. They can't do it. I wish there were a civil rights attorney here to set you people straight on what your rights are because you are empowering the companies and it would appear the government too to do wrong.
UNFREAKING BELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EV_Ares]

379. Neither do you. You are in their store, on their property. No civil rights

were broken. This is so stupid, you need to talk to a lawyer yourself as you are the one rather unbelievable about this.

I don't think the store will miss you if you don't go there. However, since more and more of them are checking receipts, eventually you might be limited to the stores you can go to. Most people don't mind showing a receipt as they walk out anyway.

"Stop and Identify" laws require that a person detained BY a peace officer may be required under certain circumstances to identify themselves. If facts do not support or justify a detention, the person can say "Am I free to go?" The person can satisfy any "Stop and Identify" requirement by stating his name (in some states, they require name, address and date of birth), but the person is not required to produce identification.

A shop owner can risk false imprisonment charges if he detains a customer for more than a "reasonable" amount of time (which courts have determined to be 10 but not more than 15 minutes). The U.S. recognizes the right of a store owner to protect his store property from theft - this is recognized as a "privilege". The privilege can be lost if the store owner does not detain the customer on or very near to the store premises (some states allow in-store detentions only), and the customer can be detained only if the shop owner has "reasonable" grounds to suspect the detained person has committed or is committing a crime against the store (it is a suspicion of shoplifting if they see a person conceal unpaid for merchandise on his person), and the store owner may use reasonable force only (no pushing to the ground, man-handling, hand-cuffing, etc.). If these conditions are not met by the store owner, he loses his privilege and can be charged with false imprisonment.

In addition, if a shop owner wrongfully accuses a person of shoplifting, the shop owner can be found guilty of defamation.

It is only an arrest that requires "probable cause".

Probable cause means more than a suspicion but less than evidence that will justify
a conviction. Probable cause is a reasonable ground to suspect a person has
committed or is committing a crime. Probable cause must be shown in order for an
arrest or search warrant to be issued.

Reasonable simply means "fair". Your other option is to show the receipt which is not a big deal to most people. But again, since you don't like showing your receipt, if I were you, I would go to a store and just push it for all its worth and take them to court, I am sure you would win big. Yeah right.

[Javaman]

377. Because many people who choose to call themselves liberals...

say so only in private. But like to play the sheeple role in real life.

don't try to reason with the people that defend the various corporate practices that limit our freedoms, it will make your head spin.

[FREEWILL56]

380. TOO LATE

:crazy:

[joe_sixpack]

385. Blockbuster video

and many other stores have sensors when you exit. The sensors are supposed to pick up a signal from certain store items that weren't deactivated by a store worker after purchase or rental. If the scanner activates, most of the time it means something was taken without payment. If the activation was in error, store officials might tell you just to proceed, or check your receipt. This is indeed a form of a search of your person. Now, if the folks who are bothered that an actual person is the one doing the checking, but are not bothered by these sensors, I suggest you wait a few years until every item of value in stores has its own microchip that's automatically deactivated at the same time the item is scanned at purchase. The scanners at the exits will be unnoticeable by then and you can resume enjoying the bliss of your shopping experience in wonderful oblivion.

[FREEWILL56]

386. The placing of sensors

on their property is allowed as it does not belong to you until you pay for it and then it is deactivated or removed so as to not set off an alarm. Many times due to the inexperience or forgetfulness of the cashier it isn't deactivated or removed thus embarrassing the law abiding customer because it isn't supposed to go off unless you are stealing. That circumstance has the possibility of a lawsuit from that person being restrained for proof they aren't thieves, but the possibility of a defamation of character lawsuit also being able to be launched by the customer because of implied theft should worry stores.

edit to add:

Just like that alarm isn't proof of theft, neither is a receipt not being shown proof of theft and stores walk a thin line in violating a customer's rights and it depends on how it is handled by the store. But some people don't understand that and give more rights to the stores than they have. Technically when you pay for your movie and go to exit that blockbuster store setting off their alarm that unless that security device that is in place doesn't impede your being able to watch the movie, you do not have to stop and prove to blockbuster that you aren't a thief as the burden of proof is on them. If they stop you and detain you, they better be able to prove a case against you. Many here would call you a trouble maker and an asshole asking for trouble for not stopping for blockbuster, but none the less you are within your rights to not stop imho. Any lawyers out there care to comment?

[lligrd]

398. The Practice Has Always Irked Me And I Avoid Stores That

do it.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

395. Wowk, I had no idea this thread was going to get so long..

And I'm not sure that anyone has switched sides or that there are many neutrals.

I think it has something to do with how we perceive the world around us.

And I think it has to do with age to some extent.

[FREEWILL56]

396. Could you elaborate further on this?

"And I think it has to do with age to some extent."

How are you figuring age into it?
I would still like to hear from a civil rights attorney for their take on all of this.

[BlooInBloo]

400. Who knows? They also routinely take the side of management against labor.