|
Originally Posted by fujishig
It would be on it's 20th page by now in Otter...
|
Originally Posted by nemein
No, if we lived in an authoritarian state it wouldn't even be a question.
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 The sad part is, people doing bullshit stunts like this is only going to cause stores to start implementing more stringent safeguards |
Pretty funny that the guy called the cops and then refused to cooperate with them. What a dumbass.
|
Originally Posted by Xbox69
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. |
Originally Posted by SkullOrchard
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. |
Originally Posted by Jah-Wren Ryel
...And if you come back with a variation on the expected, "it JUST is" well then I rest my case that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
|
Originally Posted by nemein
Speaking of laws, here's something I dug up on the shoplifting law in Ohio. So how this meshes w/ CC policy on what to do at the door is the main question that needs to be answered wrt whether or not the CC guys were in the right in taking it to the point they did.
http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm Without Search To satisfy many who believe that the law would give the merchant, or his employee or agent the right to search the clothing and the body of a person, the phrase, "without search," is retained in the law. It is a limitation upon what the merchant, or his employee or agent may do. No right is given to search the suspected shoplifter or his person. The basic law of the land protects a person from unlawful search and seizure, and such search and seizure can take place only after proper Court authority has been obtained. Therefore this passing word of caution: under no circumstances should a merchant take it upon himself to search or "shake down" a suspect. This does not mean, however, that through request or conversation he may not seek to obtain his goods from the suspected shoplifter. Probable Cause for Believing What are the circumstances that must exist before such detention takes place? The law says that the merchant, or his employee or agent, must have "probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person." In short there must be "probable cause." This is legal phraseology and covers a multitude of situations. Each situation presents circumstances unique to itself. Probable cause has been defined to be "a reasonable ground to warrant a cautious man into believing the accused to be guilty." Therefore to merely suspect without surrounding circumstances that a person may or may not be a shoplifter, is not enough to justify detention. The very definition urges a conservative approach. However, with this caution we do not mean the power should never be used. Obviously in hundreds of cases such grounds exist. The law says that larceny, of which shoplifting is a form, has two basic elements: 1. The taking and the carrying away of the goods, and 2. Intent to deprive permanently the owner of those goods. The first element is purely physical. If a person is seen putting goods in his pocket, shopping bag, under a dress or coat, or in some other way concealing the items, the first element is satisfied. In each case the question should be asked, "Would a cautious man on the basis of these facts believe this person has taken merchandise?" If the answer is yes, and there is no reasonable alternative, then the requirement would be satisfied. However, there should be a certainty you can prove by your own testimony, or that of your employees, the facts upon which the decision was based. If after detention or arrest the goods are delivered to you, then the intent of the person to deprive permanently the owner of those goods is established beyond question. But the case you must be prepared for is the one where in spite of all caution, either by accident or design, the suspected culprit only gave the appearance of having the goods and nothing is found. In that case the existence of probable cause is your basic protection. |
Originally Posted by nemein
Because it is about a store and this is the store forum...
|
Precisely my point. You ask the question as if there is only one answer, the authoritarian one. In a free country the answer is BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY. "And if you come back with a variation on the expected, "it JUST is" well then I rest my case that you don't have a clue what you are talking about." -ptth- And both are voluntary. You appear to be arguing that mandatory bag searches are fine. Blame the victim. |
Originally Posted by Jah-Wren Ryel
Two points from that document:
Refusal of a mandatory search is obviously insufficient grounds for probable cause since the mandatory search is itself is illegal. Certainly doesn't come anywhere near satisfying the requirement of convincing a cautious man. |
From his blog it sounds like things it could all work out for him, but it is certainly a big ado about nothing.
Just a big mess for no real reason. The guy certainly didn't thave to show his bag to the CC employees, but they shouldn't have followed him to his car and prevented him from leaving. If they really thought he was shoplifting they should've called the police. They didn't and should've just let him go. But really, how hard is it to act like a human to another person? Just humor the CC people and show them your stuff. This is not worth any energy, it's an unnecessary headache, just be civil to another person. It makes life easier for everyone. |
From now on, they should just let the person leave the store, take down their license plate, and call the cops and tell them they are suspicious about the person being a thief. Then the cop pulls them over or shows up at their house and hassles them, taking much longer than the 2 seconds it would have taken to show the receipt.
|
Originally Posted by nemein
This is where the company policies become important. Again if they were written in such a way that the CC guys exceeded their authority that's one thing. If they were written in such a way that they go beyond what is legally allowed that's another.
Edit: BTW, I can say with complete confidence that the store manager and the employee that blocked the car were breaking corporate policy. All of the big stores know exactly what the law is and have policies in place that, if anything, err on the conservative side. I'd bet good money that a major contributing factor to this event was the recent lay-off of all the experienced and "over-priced" CC employees. The only ones left are the poorly trained and otherwise not very bright. In that sense at least, CC does bear some culpability. It's their job to train their employees.
Originally Posted by nemein
That's the principle argument I was talking about earlier. Principles are fine but it's going to come into conflict w/ practical application. It is a free country but it is a country defined by its laws.
So my argument to you is that we lose nothing of the principle of freedom/liberty by the practical practice of having the contents of the shopping bag... What we would lose by accepting mandatory bag searches is the edges of our rights. If it were legal it would be yet another piece of our liberty and freedom from unreasonable searches taken, part of the slow erosion of our rights over the centuries. Like the proverbial boiling of a frog. One bit here, one bit there until the generations have been conditioned to accept restrictions that would have been intolerable in the past. You seem to want to argue that people "shouldn't sweat the small stuff" when it comes to privacy and civil rights. I thoroughly disagree. That's like saying we shouldn't go to the doctor until we've got cancer. The small stuff is exactly where small people, individuals and families, can make a difference. If we let the small stuff slide, then when the big stuff comes around it is that much harder to fix. |
Originally Posted by Drop
But really, how hard is it to act like a human to another person? Just humor the CC people and show them your stuff. This is not worth any energy, it's an unnecessary headache, just be civil to another person. It makes life easier for everyone.
But your argument to "just humor" them is a terrible one. Think about where that one leads. Just because a poorly-paid person is tasked with carrying out some faceless corp's crappy policies doesn't mean we should all just feel sorry for the guy and give the corp what it wants. If anything, that's manipulation. |
I'm not saying we should overlook the small stuff, I'm saying it's pretty arrogant to waste everyone else's time by being a jackass over something stupid. I don't think asking to see a receipt is any more an invasion of privacy or civil rights than asking to see a claim check at baggage handling. Like someone said, pick your battles, and make sure it is something worth fighting for, not something stupid like this.
|
Why does it make a difference if it is CC policy or not? ... Coerced searches are illegal and "unlawful restraint" is illegal regardless of if the people doing them are just following orders or not. What we would lose by accepting mandatory bag searches is the edges of our rights. You seem to want to argue that people "shouldn't sweat the small stuff" when it comes to privacy and civil rights. |
Originally Posted by nemein
This is no victim in this case, from the way it reads everyone involved did something wrong/exacerbated the situation needlessly.
|
Originally Posted by nemein
So again how those policies mesh w/ the governing laws is important and helps determined wrt the employees or the company who is potentially in the wrong.
No my main argument has been people should pick the right fights when it comes to privacy and civil rights. I agree fighting the small stuff at the grass roots is a good idea, a better place to do this though would have been something like the club/bonus cards you get from grocery stores. |
All I get from reading your posts is that everyone "misunderstands" or is otherwise "ignorant" of the law...except you.
Serious questions here: are you a lawyer? Law student? Professor? Lawmaker? |
Righi is clearly the victim. ... Coerced searches are illegal. Unlawful restraint is illegal. |
The biggest difference here is that mandatory bag searches are ILLEGAL. Loyalty cards are legal. Are you really saying that one guy should let someone do something to him illegally, but fight the much harder fight to do something (what? criminalize, fat chance) VOLUNTARY loyalty cards? |
Originally Posted by Toad
All I get from reading your posts is that everyone "misunderstands" or is otherwise "ignorant" of the law...except you.
Serious questions here: are you a lawyer? Law student? Professor? Lawmaker? |
Originally Posted by Toad
All I get from reading your posts is that everyone "misunderstands" or is otherwise "ignorant" of the law...except you.
Serious questions here: are you a lawyer? Law student? Professor? Lawmaker? They were all written from the perspective of the merchant, not a liberty-freak trying to push the boundries.
Originally Posted by nemein
WRT the legality of "coerced searches" and whether or not this was really an "unlawful restraint" I'll wait for the professionals who are going to deal w/ this case to weigh in on that and make the real judgment call.
2905.03 Unlawful restraint. (A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly restrain another of his liberty. That's fine we can argue about it but wrt privacy/liberty issues it's an exceedingly trivial aspect. If you want to argue about privacy/liberty issues then things like bonus cards are a significantly larger risk to privacy, regardless of whether or not they are legal. You are drawing arbitrary lines and saying "this side good and this side bad because I say so." |
Originally Posted by Jah-Wren Ryel
Have you read the links that nemein posted and that I quoted? Or how about the links that I posted.
They were all written from the perspective of the merchant, not a liberty-freak trying to push the boundries. |
2905.03 Unlawful restraint. (A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly restrain another of his liberty. Section 2935.041. (A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity. What, you want me to explain why loyalty card's are less of a problem then mandatory searches, but the fact that loyalty card's are VOLUNTARY and mandatory searches are well, MANDATORY, is off limits? You are drawing arbitrary lines and saying "this side good and this side bad because I say so." |
Originally Posted by Toad
No, sure haven't. So how about an answer to my question?
If you are talking about real risks to privacy though loyalty cards (voluntary or not) are much more problematic than limited/restrained mandatory searches done of products that were just purchased. If you can't see that, well I'm not sure there's much else to be said... |
Impressive victory!
Hey you don't have to be a lawyer to know "the law." But unless someone here practices in Ohio, we're all doing the same thing: reading and interpreting the statutes and using them to advance our own arguments. :) |
Who do some keep referring to bag searches? Of the dozens of times I have been in this situation, never once have they asked to search my bag nor tried to do it themselves. They merely asked to see a receipt.
|
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Btw, you come across as a person who is pro illegal immigration. Are you? Just curious.
-p |
As I responded to 'polizei' I'm pro personal freedom. it's not the goverment mandating them. |
Originally Posted by BambooLounge
The person's actions, while well within his civil rights were done solely for the purpose of making "a point" that quite frankly does not resonate past himself and his family. Retail chains are not going to stop checking receipts because of an isolated incident, it costs them less to pay off a guy like this every now and then via a lawsuit than to not check and lose merchandise.
I don't have a problem with what the guy objected to, I just think he comes off a bit whiney and preachy while doing it. He should sue CC and request a written apology by the cop, who obviously did not know the proper procedure. -p |
Originally Posted by cdollaz
Who do some keep referring to bag searches? Of the dozens of times I have been in this situation, never once have they asked to search my bag nor tried to do it themselves. They merely asked to see a receipt.
|
Originally Posted by SkullOrchard
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.
-p |
Originally Posted by nemein
The Gov't isn't mandating the CC exit search either
Again we are guessing as to the real incident. So far we just have one person's account of it (the self professed "victim"), I know having someone search my bag of items I just purchased isn't treating me like a thief and likely is part of their store loss prevention plan If they do not think you are a thief, then why are searching your bag? If they do not think you are a thief, what do they expect to find in your bag? A midget employee sneaking out for an unscheduled smoke break? |
Originally Posted by nemein
That's the crux of the issue. Does the section below, and what the policies of CC are (and whether or not they were being followed and their overall legality), give the CC employees the privilege of restraining the prick. You act as if it's an open and shut case. I've been around enough lawyers and police to know that there is rarely such a thing in real life.
Section 2935.041. (A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity. What I'd like to see is the guy slap the city with a civil suit seeking a huge, yet reasonable, award. When the city realizes they're in a heap of trouble, offer to drop the suit if the officer gives him an oral and written apology as well as agreeing to quit or to re-enroll in the academy to learn the law he is required to uphold. Although many may feel Righi acted like 'a prick', the officer either a) knew the limitations of the law and abused the power that he had or b) clearly didn't understand the laws of his city or state. |
Again, a total cop-out. To imply he didn't tell the whole story is absolutely bogus, maybe he made up the part about being detained too. If they do not think you are a thief, then why are searching your bag? If they do not think you are a thief, what do they expect to find in your bag? |
Why would any employer (or employee following orders) believe that just because a person refuses to offer up their bag for inspection, that such an action is probable cause for a search or dentention? Why stop at merchandise bag, why not a purse, backpack, fannypack or those small pouches on the sides of wheelchairs? |
Originally Posted by Jah-Wren Ryel
If they do not think you are a thief, then why are [they] searching your bag?
Obviously some employees take their job a little too seriously and I guess this is what results when a stubborn donkey meets a stubborn donkey. Lawsuits get filed, 911 is called for a non-emergency purpose and ultimately we all have to pay for it. |
Originally Posted by Jah-Wren Ryel
Are you trying to say that calling 911 was abuse?
Have you tried to call for the police recently? In most jurisdictions, 911 is the standard and only way to have an officer dispatched. Calling 911 and ordering a pizza is abuse, calling 911 to have an officer dispatched is standard operating procedure. This entire debate is ridiculous. How difficult is it to stop for 10 seconds and show your receipt and your bag? People are acting like the retailers are committing war crimes here. It's not at all a big deal. I don't understand the mindset of people who want to be pricks and refuse to do this. It's not a big deal! Your "civil rights" and all of that crap aren't being violated...it's a freaking 10 second stop. It hurts nobody. I do a lot of in-store pickups at Best Buy. The guy at the door usually asks for the receipt, to see. After the first or second time doing this, I volunteer it to the guy. It's being friendly, and it's not a big deal. I don't go out every day trying to make things hard on everyone else around me (myself included) just because I can't afford to stand at the door for ten seconds. It's absurd. |
This is how the guy explained it in his blog....
understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver’s license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused. It isn't simply the fact that a corporation is undertaking such checks without just cause, I think it is more to do with the apparent blind acceptance by the public at large that there is some right for the blurring of what can be done by corporations and government agencies in day to day situations such as these. If stores in the UK start such shenanigans they won't be getting my custom. They should spend their time spotting the real thieves rather than insisting on ineffectual but insulting procedures such as are being discussed here. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.