Oh please, did you even read the release? He did not accept any such thing. The only thing the release says is that he won't file suit. If he really had been forbidden to discuss the details of the agreement, how do you think he got away with posting a PDF of it on his website?

I must have missed where he said that.

OK, the newspaper story reported that he said that. In his subsequent blog, I guess he said that what was reported in that article is not necessarily correct.

I don't think Polizei is saying he agreed to those conditions. He's saying that once the guy heard what the prosecutor was offering, you would think that it would make him so angry that he would be even more committed to seeing his fight through to the end rather than dropping it.

I think he made the right move in dropping the police matter, but his claim that he achieved victory in that little battle is a bit far-fetched.

No, he said that was the initial agreement they presented to him which he did not sign. They came back to him later saying if he said he would not sue the city then they would drop the charges. He did not agree to the 3 things you mentioned, he just said that's what they came to him with & he refused to agree to that.

Backpeddling is fun!

Nor does it to me. Who's he hiring? Matlock?

I was under the impression that he was paying his legal fees personally and handing to the ACLU all the monies that were paypal'd to him.

So he claims. I'm not buying that he INCURRED $10k in attorney fees. A retainer, possibly, but those are generally refundable as to any unearned portion (I imagine this might vary in various jurisdictions). Heck, I would have only charged him $5,000 to hold his hand while he signed the release .

One griping point, however, is that donations were (presumably) given with the expectation that they were needed to fund what Righi foresaw as a long, expensive battle with the criminal justice system. In the end, the donations were unnecessary because there was no battle and, in any event, Righi apparently has ample means to fund his own defense (but that's another can of worms).

I don't understand why he didn't simply refund the PayPal donations back to each donor (less transaction fees) instead of (supposedly) donating them to the ACLU. It's a quick and simple procedure, last I checked.

Matlock ? I wouldn't pay $1 for Matlock. Matlock sucks. LOL

This is such an interesting story. Wouldn't have expected it to show up here.

As usual though, my opinion on the whole thing changed during the process of reading the 22 pages of this thread.

First, I was glad there were people like this guy (whatever his true motivations) in the world who would, at the very least, ruin a perfectly good day to stand up for something.

It is scary that stores can demand to see your receipt. The first time I ever noticed anyone doing this was back around 1998, when the Home Depot started doing it. The reason they did was that they did not employ any loss prevention people and it was a cheap theft deterrent.

The only reason the stores have the 'authority' to do this is because we gave it to them. There was no legal basis for this policy, but our behavior established it. (to the people who posted stuff like "so what dude, it's circuit city... who cares? : You're absolutely right. Showing your reciept at the door isn't that big a deal. But learning that your voluntary compliance with things is the very thing that empowers people is what's important.... and scary).

And don't even get me started on police. I have never been arrested or accused of a crime, and have never even recieved a point carrying motor vehicle violation, and yet, I have never had an encounter with a police officer that I would catagorize as a positive experience. There is always an air of hostility or intimidation about them. They use body language and other ambiguous (ie. unprovable in court) tactics to bully people around.

However, (remember, I said my opinion changed while reading this thread) what scares me even more than the abuse of power by the government is the complete ignorance and incompotence of the public at large. The opinions voiced in this thread show a complete lack of knowledge of all things from civil rights, to the legal process, to how large corporations turn a profit, to basic common sense and ethics and humanity.

Sometimes I just go to sleep at night thinking what a good thing it is that a few corporations really do run the world, because I would have insomnia if I thought it was in the hands of the idiots-at-large.

Having said all that, if just one national news magazine (Dateline, 20/20) went to a Best Buy and filmed people getting arrested for walking out without showing their reciept, the stores would terminate that policy tomorrow.

An excellent DVD Talk thread and an excellent story.

I think this guy had every right of causing trouble or questioning the law. But he's an idiot for subjecting his family through this, especially right before a kid's birthday? He got his siblings crying and possibly screwed up someone's birthday party. But if he was by himself, then he has all the right to test the system. If he was by himself, could he really have no case if there were no witnesses? If witnesses are so important in deciding cases, then they should stop using the "do you swear to tell the whole truth, help you god, blah blah blah."

What if he threw out or lost the receipt before showing security? What do they do then?

He tested the cop, but come on. He should know what a cop is. It's a person that not only protects but also bullies. If they knew the law, then they could become lawyers. Cops are not lawyers.

Retailers check receipts for a number of reasons: to make sure that the customer is getting the product that they paid for to avoid any immediate future disappointment; to make sure that the employee who rung them out did so correctly-believe it or not, there are plenty of retail employees working the system with their friends; to make sure that they are not stealing (theft figures are astounding); etc.

Damn! Colby, where were you when this thread started? If you had just posted that illuminating information at the start we never would have gone on for 19 pages!

I think you better re-read what he said. From what I can tell...

1) He has NOT filed a Section 1983 civil suit against the Brooklyn police department for infringing on his civil rights.

2) He has NOT made any disparaging remarks about the police department. He even says the cop was a good guy.

3) He has NOT discussed the details of his agreement with the PD and the prosecutor.

I found nowhere on his website where he said he didn't sign an agreement agreeing to as much. He just said he was angry at the outcome.

He never says he didn't sign such an agreement. And he conveniently comes up with a family crisis...which...he cannot discuss.

So, you are saying that the PDF of the release he posted on his website is NOT the same as the release that he actually signed?

In response to DVD Polizei, he did sign an ageement (a copy of which was available on his website). As I recall, he agreed only to forego a lawsuit against the city/police/etc. He did not agree to any restrictions on his speech about the incident.

And yes, the family "crisis" was rather convenient and (I suspect) overblown. Yes, Michael, when you decide to go to trial, witnessess will be called and yes, it can be inconvenient for them. That is one practical reason why you don't make a federal case out of an incident that occurs in another state from where you live. From what he states about the incident, I don't even think he would have had to go to trial anyway since it was such a slam-dunk in his favor.

BUT perhaps there are facts about his arrest that he isn't disclosing and his family would have been called to testify about these "additional" facts. Maybe he got physical with the cop or otherwise crossed a line that would have subjected him to a real criminal charge (as opposed to the laughable "interference with official business" charge).

If that were the case, why wouldn't he have been charged with those more heinous crimes in the first place? From what I see on the news every night, prosecutors will pile on as many charges as they can possibly justify.

Very true that. I don't know, something just seems "off" in all of this. He appeared to have a rock-solid case and he had earlier proclaimed that he would fight the good fight to the bitter end, then he inexplicably caves. To top it off, he waives his right to sue the police (not that he would have actually sued them), which basically gives the lie to all his previous rhetoric in that by signing this agreement he implicitly endorses the cop's actions. The word "poseur" comes to mind. If he had really paid his attorneys $10k, why not make them earn it and force the case to trial? The prosecution would have folded on the eve of trial and his principles would have been vindicated without having to waive anything. As it is, he got nothing, not even an apology, and the police can point to the waiver he signed as vindication for their actions.

Perhaps I've watched too many DVDs, but it sure sounds like the "personal matters" were some sort of direct or indirect retaliatory pressure. Like his father's largest client is brother of the local police chief and has threatened to pull his business. Or his younger brother is applying for a law enforcement job, like with the fbi, and a conviction (no matter how small the chance) would seriously compromise his brother's ability to pass a stringent background check.

Or perhaps it was something more mundane, like a parent being diagnosed with cancer or alzheimers.

Don't believe for a minute that this wouldn't have been defended vigorously by the city (and the merchant). They have lawyers just waiting to defend the police from questionable or spurious suits. Happens all the time.

No, I was speaking of the criminal case. There is no way the prosecutor goes to trial on an "interference with official business" charge (assuming the accuracy of Righi's account). So why would Righi agree to sign away some of the civil rights he claims to cherish so much when all he he had to do was request a trial on the criminal case and wait for the prosecution to inevitably fold? After all, he claims that he had already paid his attorneys $10k. That's close to twice the amount it would cost to go to trial on a single misdemeanor charge in my county.

As for a civil case against the city/police/CC, of course that would be a much more difficult fight, especially as against the municipality (CC would likely just throw a few thousand his way to settle the case). But I don't recall that Righi ever indicated that he intended to file a civil suit and, in any event, his monetary damages were too small to support such an effort.

Mr. Righi's folding makes me think there's more to the story than what he has reported. But now, I guess we'll never know.

Or maybe his dad just got fed up and told him to quit being such an asshat.

Fire the cashiers and replace them with the loss prevention staff. Problem solved.