So tell me what freedom/liberty is being put at risk by having a bag that should only contain items you just purchased 10 ft away casually looked at/compared to a receipt which you should also have readily available? It's not just the "principle" of the thing either since principles have to have practical application in the real world. By wasting time on this "debate" and self made issue it makes it harder to focus on the greater/more important issues (like the ID card thing w/ the officer). Now there is an issue that needs to be debated/worked out, but the shopping bag thing is just a distraction and ultimately meaningless since it's probably not going to change anyone's policies and it's not going to lead to strip-searches, nor probably even purse searches if there is no other reason for suspicion (talk about blowing things out of proportion -ohbfrank-).

I really am into privacy/liberty and understand some of the issues that are at risk (I wrote a series of papers for school a couple of years back covering some of these issues). IMHO the problem most privacy advocates have though is themselves quite frankly. They go off on these little meaningless tangents in defense of the "greater good" but all the time they are really hurting the overall cause because they make it easier to dismiss anyone who is adamant about privacy as a tinfoil hat wearing kook. There is no ultimate right of privacy in our system of law. If you walk out your door, go shopping, interact w/ people in general you are going to come across things that you may think infringe upon that "right" but in most cases it's benign and the price of living in today's society. People have to learn how to pick their battles, and the one that precipitated this event was not one worth fighting IMHO.

So back to the question though, in practical terms what privacy have I given up by showing a receipt and contents of a bag that should only contain what I just bought?

Actually as I understand it kidnapping is generally/legally defined as restricting the movement of a person by any means w/o legal authority. So technically he is correct.

Technically, he's not.

If I recall correctly this happened in Ohio. Ohio's kidnapping statute states the following:

None of the elements of subparts (A) or (B) were met. Thus, the law was not violated.

:up:

Yep, guy wanted his 15 minutes of fame.

I guess I should say for my state that's how it was explained to me ;)

Well that's always the kicker. States rarely have uniform laws, especially regarding criminal acts. Some states' kidnapping laws are probably very soft (arguably like Ohio's). I imagine Florida's and Texas' are much more stringent.

Actually though this seems to fit what happened...
(B) No person, by force, threat, or deception, or, in the case of a victim under the age of thirteen or mentally incompetent, by any means, shall knowingly do any of the following, under circumstances that create a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the victim or, in the case of a minor victim, under circumstances that either create a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the victim or cause physical harm to the victim:

(2) Restrain another of his liberty;

Now whether this guy thought he was at risk of serious harm is another story ;) Overall I think it's just a matter of the poster here using more emotionally charged terms to make his side/position more sympathetic.

It's just ironic that one would accuse the police officer of "ignorance of the law," then throw out the term "kidnapping" in this context.

This guy couldn't prove "substantial risk of serious physical harm . . ." I'd love to argue the case and put the other Circuit City shoppers on the stand to refute the claim.

Actually the policy does matter, because if the CC guys went against policy then the onus is on them to justify their actions. If the policy violates law (something for the courts to decide not anyone here) then the onus is on CC to justify their policy.

Um, what? Laws don't stop being enforcable on private property. This particular law applies to police officers (no matter where they are doing their job).

Are you serious?

Yep, sure am.

[I'll stick with the definition in Black's Law Dictionary and Ohio's statute. You can stick with your Wikipedia definition.] ;)

Whoop-de-doo.

"Kidnapping" in most states, technically "unlawful restraint" in Ohio. Either way, it still illegal and the cop should have known it.

Do you really think that such a minor detail somehow invalidates the point that the circuit city employees broke the law and the guy who was arrested did not?

This guy is an idiot. I think hes making it all up just to get some Paypal cash. What a freakin loser.

No, I don't really think it invalidates your argument. That said, I haven't read the statutes that were supposedly violated (or not violated). I didn't want to waste my time sifting through the brow-beating in your "arguments" with DVD-Polizei, so maybe it's already posted and I missed it.

Without knowing more, I support the bag-checking. If that means I'm better off in China, so be it. It's a minor inconvenience to me, and I can appreciate a business' attempts to control theft. If they wanted to frisk me or, as you theorized, strip me naked, then I'd have an issue with it.

You frame the question as if we live in an authoritarian state. It isn't what one person gives up, it is does Circuit City's lack of trust of their own employees justify searching the private property of third parties? The law is already clear on this, it does not. That's the price of living in a country founded on the principles of individual liberty.

This Michael Righi idiot is an immature attention whore, jealous because it was his little sister's birthday and she was the focus of everyone's attention that day. Remember, the primary reason for this family outing was to buy ingredients for his sister's "silly birthday wish" for Monkeybread. To pull a stunt like that when your entire family is waiting for you in the car is beyond ridiculous...regardless of the law.

Just because something is technically legal doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do. I'm 43 years old, and by law, I can legally have sex with my 16 year-old cousin...but that doesn't make it right.

This guy set out to steal this special day away from his sister, and by doing so, he became the focus of everyone's attention. Timing is everything, and I don't believe for one second that this guy's actions were motivated by any deep-seeded regard for preserving Constitutional law. If that is your belief, then we simply have to agree to disagree.

So, you can dig up statute 2905.01 but can't be bothered to look on the next page at 2905.03? Seems like your desire is not for the truth, just a silly attempt to score points.

That has to be the worst analogy I have ever read.

Lol! I mean totally roflmao.

Ok, so civil rights are the same thing as incest. I didn't think you could top your first paragraph, but you sure did!

That's right. Looking up the statute did not require me to sift through your brow-beating and "YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE LAW" posts.

I have no desire here. I'm certainly not trying to "score points," whatever that means.

Incest, by definition is 'Sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees where marriage is prohibited by law.'

I can legally marry my 16 year old cousin, so legally, it isn't incest.

I'll repeat...just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

No, if we lived in an authoritarian state it wouldn't even be a question. You have made the argument we are living in a free society (which I agree w/) and that by allowing these door checks we are losing some sort of liberty (which I don't agree w/). The onus is on you to prove your case. So again in the grand scheme of things how is showing the contents of your shopping bag and a receipt an infringement of your liberty?

The funny part is, I obviously don't have any way of knowing this though, but I would suspect this person used his credit card and CC bonus card (if they have such a thing, I don't shop there myself) for this purchase, both of which have a greater privacy concerns/impact than showing your bag to the person at the door.

The sad part is, people doing bullshit stunts like this is only going to cause stores to start implementing more stringent safeguards (RFID in the packaging and maybe eventually on the receipt itself as a check - http://www.aimglobal.org/technologie...rintedTags.htm) which are going to have a much larger impact on privacy than someone looking at the contents of a shopping bag.

I could've sworn that cousins were within the prohibited lines of consanguinity re: marriage.

Either way, you're right on one account: it isn't right! ;)

I'd have to utilize my utmost restraint to keep from punching this guy in the face. Why is he taking the term DRIVER'S LICENSE so literally? Driver's licenses are used for primary identification in a number of non-driving circumstances such as applying for a job, activating a cell phone, obtaining a Blockbuster membership. So quit wasting everyone's time by acting like an smartass. :rolleyes:

...in those above 3 examples, in lieu of a DL, an official state issued picture I.D. would suffice. Both obtainable at the same DMV.