They are obviously not any less important. It's the issue (the receipt check) that brought on the confrontation in the first place is that is significantly less important. Now whether other the other actions (the confrontation w/ the CC guys and later w/ the police) that followed from his initial action are really civil rights issues (and the legality of them) is something for the courts (and people who will have more information from all sides) to decide. Based on the facts here alone I think the prick[1] may have a good case, but to try and blow this up to be equal to segregation and compare him to Rosa Parks is silly.

Bottom line: The guy may have been right, and may get a pay day out of it, but he's still a prick[1]. The receipt check is not that big of a deal nor a slippery slope to something more sinister. The courts will work out the fine details of whether or not CC's bag check policy is legal (assuming the guys were following their policies and didn't overstep their bounds) and whether or not the actions of the officer were justified. Once we get more info from the other people involved, or reports from the court case(s) I reserve the right to revise my remarks

[1] And yes I continue using that phrase because from the description he has given of his actions I don't see how anyone can say he is not obnoxious, independent of whether or not he is right/has a case.

Nemein

Again...the receipt check isn't the issue. At all.

Saying "No thanks" to a voluntary bag check doesn't make a person a prick.

I don't know why some of you want to continue to ignore the actual issues of the case, and pretend like the guy did something to cause the Circuit City employees to completely mishandle the situation, and do everything completely and ridiculously wrong.

Let me get this straight...

Speedy is a hero for standing up to those pricks at Citcuit City by refusing to honor their ban on posting their ads in advance of their publication.

Righi is a prick for standing up to those heros at Circuit City by refusing their insistance on searching the personal property of law-abiding customers.

What a f*cking joke!!

I totally admire Righi for standing up to Circuit City and the Ohio cop, both of whom were treating him like a criminal. And he did it politely. Good for him. And he's being called a prick and a jerk because of it?!?!

While I might have stood up to the CC goon, I never would have stood up to the cop. Why? Not because I felt the cop was right, but because I would have feared the cop. I would have feared that he would have pulled the same crap that he ended up pulling. And I don't like that people have to fear standing up for their rights.

And even if Righi is proven wrong on a varity of issues (bag-searches, prevention of mobility, refusing a cop's demand), I welcome the clarification of those issues.

Go back and check but I'm pretty sure that's the point I've mainly argued about in this thread. The concept that asking for a receipt/doing a bag check is not a huge infringement on privacy rights. Other people may have had other points but I don't think we have enough info of the facts to fully argue about those.

One of the definitions of prick is being obnoxious, in turn this is defined as showing off/attracting undue attention to oneself. Personally, I don't see how anyone can read his version of the story and not come to the conclusion that he has the capacity to be an obnoxious person (aka a prick), I guess you feel differently.

Some differences.

A) She apperently was suspected of theft. Whereas the manager of the CC said that this guy was not

B) The Footlocker employee was also attempting to find a security guard. The CC employee and manager were holding him on their own and when given the option to call a Police officer declined to do so.

C) "On three occasions I tried to pull the door closed but Joe pushed back on the door with his hip and hands. " Thats force.

A) The manager said the kid was not suspected of theft? I missed that.

B) I don't see how this matters.

C) (If true) He wouldn't let the door close, i.e., he was free to exit the car.

I continue to wait for someone to cite a case or statute that supports their position, rather than just shooting from the hip and arguing what they think the law is or should be.

Wonderful - but why ignore everything that happened after the clerk asked to see a receipt?

Is it a huge infringement on privacy rights for a Circuit City employee to detain you from leaving the property?

Is it a huge infringement on privacy rights for a Circuit City employee to force open the door of a person's car?

Is it a huge infringement on privacy rights for a cop to arrest somebody for not showing a driver's license while standing on a sidewalk?


Nobody has ever said that asking for a receipt/checking a bag is a huge infringement on privacy rights. It's obviously not BECAUSE he has the right to say no and walk out of the store.

It's what these fucking clowns did AFTERWARDS that became the issue. Why gloss over that?




So saying "No thanks" to a voluntary bag search makes him an absolute obnoxious prick.

Absolutely ridiculous. What is the matter with some of you people?

I suspect we are a long way off from that point and until new information becomes available we are going to have the same people saying the same things back and forth to each other....

Guess I'll check back in a few days/weeks to see if there's been any update, the rest of the it is just getting

Because that wasn't a point I was interested in arguing about because so far we just have one side of the story.


I guess we just have different POVs than you. You know what they say about opinions right

Nice!

So you're only arguing an obvious point that nobody else is actually debating?

Receipt checks aren't an invasion of privacy. No kidding.

You keep responding to my posts and those are about the only points I've been making. You tell me, are we debating or not...

Why exactly do you continue to use unsupported exagerations of the admittedly one-side "evidence" in hand. AT NO POINT, according to Mr. Righi, DID THE CC EMPLOYEES "FORCE OPEN" THE DOOR OF THE VEHICLE.

Do you not understand this important LEGAL distinction, or are you intentionally using inflamatory exageration to make your position seem more rational.

All we know, again according to Mr. Righi's recollection, is that the CC employee may have prevented the closure of the car door. Of course, again by forcing the employee to conduct his conversation with Mr. Righi by stepping between the car frame and the car door, Mr. Righi set up a situation in which any attempt by him to close the door would result in STRIKING the CC employee with whom the discussion was ongoing. To me this is further evidence of Mr. Righi's pre-planned agenda for the situation. (In otherwords, there was an intentional and pre-planned reason for opening the door to talk with the CC employee rather than rolling down the window like anyone else would have done.)

Did the CC employee intentionally restrain the closure of the car door. We cannot know until the trier of fact hears both sides/multiple recollections and makes a decision on who is being the most accurate/truthful.


As others have mentioned, way to go and make yourself seem egocentric.

We have a different opinion. And for some of us, our opinion is based upon our professional knowledge base. I for one know that I am fallable. However, I would like to think my 13 years of professional development would improve my chances in understanding the very important details and distinctions which must be considered in evaluating a situation like this.

To summarize, I believe that CC and the police likely exceeded the general scope of their authority in their interaction with Mr. Righi. That said, Mr. Righi, in my opinion, intentionally took certain actions to provoke such a response. To me, this issue is so minor in importance that I cannot see how forcing an event to conform to Mr. Righi's pre-planned fight is necessary to rectify a non-existent sytematic and significant threat to personal privacy and civil liberties.

I don't even want to begin to argue any of the legal stuff here. There is no point. The facts will come out in court and the judge/jury will speak to the law. I will discuss the guy being a dick though. He is a dick because he was a pain in the ass to a low-wage employee who was doing nothing other than following the directions he was given by his employer. Maybe he had the right to refuse to show the receipt (once again, that is still undetermined), but why bother. The schlep was only doing his job. If he had a problem with it, he could and should have taken it to the manager or corporate, not to a low-level employee who couldn't do anything about it anyway.
Some examples:

1. I hate when a restaurant has a policy of no separate checks or where they automatically include tips for a large party. I hate both of those alot. Does that mean I am an ass to the waiter when he enforces the policy. No, because I am not a dick. The waiter is just doing his job. If I have a problem, I should take it up with the mgmt. or not patronize the business.

2. Our local amphitheatre has a policy that when you buy plastic-bottled water/beer from them, they do not give you the bottle but instead pour it in a cup and throw away the bottle. Do I like the policy. Of course not. I like being able to cap the bottle and it holds up the already long line. Do I bitch and act like an ass to the person pouring the beverage? No. Once again because I am not an ass and my argument is not with them, but with the maker of the policy. And also because doing so would hold everybody in line behind me up and make me a big douchebag. If I don't like the policy, I can either deal with it or take refuse to give them my money.

I could come up with many more examples of shit that stores/companies do that annoy me. Bottom line is that, aside from any legal issues regarding this, the dude is a dick because chose to have nothing better to do than argue with a guy who was only doing his job and had no power to waive the policy anyway.

Why is it you have so much trouble with reading comprehension?

"I twice asked Joe to back away from the car so that I could close the door. Joe refused. On three occasions I tried to pull the door closed but Joe pushed back on the door with his hip and hands."

When you ask somebody to step away from your car, and try to close the door to your own car - and somebody else pushes against the door forcing it open - you don't consider that forcing a door open?

Really?



So you feel that by opening a door to your private property, that allows somebody else to prevent you from closing that same door?

Really?



Yes, he is an evil mastermind that can predict the future. That much is obvious.


So basically we should assume that everything we know about this case is a flat out lie.




The only action he took to "provoke" this ridiculous response by Circuit City and the police was to say "No thanks" to a voluntary receipt check.

The fact that so many of you think that the little bastard got what he deserved for refusing to be a good little sheep is quite sad and disturbing. And I say again - what is wrong with some of you people?

You have no value for your own basic rights and liberties as a human being.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." ~ Benjamin Franklin

What is odd is that people on this kid's side says things like "what is wrong with some of you people" and "you know nothing about the law" and "you are ignorant."

In my experience, brow-beating doesn't further arguments.

Kind of like "The stupid prick douchebag deserved it"?

That's not brow-beating YOU and your OPINION. It's brow-beating the stupid prick douchebag. There's a difference.

I thought the receipt check wasn't important. If you want to talk about the interaction between him and the CC employees and the cop after the incident that's fine, other may oblige you but personally I don't think we have enough facts to debate that. If you want to talk about whether or not a receipt check is a "basic rights and liberty issue" and that complying w/ it somehow makes people "good little sheep" is another thing, and one that I would argue doesn't pass the sniff test.


I certainly do and illegal detention (by private parties or gov't officials) is an important issue. Again though we don't have enough facts in this case to know what really happened. It could have happened exactly like he stated it, in which case he probably has a good case. However just like people here are arguing/misinterpreting/misrepresenting each other I'm sure everyone involved in the actual situation has a different version of what happened. W/O knowing those we can't begin to draw accurate conclusions.

Your analogies ignore one basic thing. The Circuit City policy could very well be illegal. I don't applaud people for question annoying policies, just potentially illegal ones.

That's why I said way way back when that knowing what policy the CC guys were operating under is one of the crucial aspects of this case. W/O knowing those and their legality I don't see how we can judge the actions of the CC guys at this point.

Fine, then do it in the correct manner. If it were me in this situation, being paranoid that big brother was out to steal my soul, I would have handled it more approriately. I would have shown the person who has no power my receipt, and then expressed my concerns to someone with authority. If the guy wanted to raise hell to mgmt, then so be it. That is why they are there. He can escalate it all he wants if he does it to the appropriate people. Call a fucking lawyer, call CC corporate every five minutes, show up at the CEOs office. Just dont' take it out on the person who is only doing his job.

Ah, to hell with "facts" and "law"...

I don't think he was taking it out on the person doing the job. He seemed pretty polite about the whole thing, assuming that his account was true. He was neither rude nor abusive.