Arrested at Circuit City
09-05-07 | 02:31 PM
#76
Why is this not in Other?
09-05-07 | 02:44 PM
#79
DVD Talk Godfather
It would be on it's 20th page by now in Otter...
09-05-07 | 02:45 PM
#80
Moderator
Originally Posted by nemein
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.
http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm
09-05-07 | 02:46 PM
#81
Moderator
Originally Posted by fujishig
It would be on it's 20th page by now in Otter...
I think we've had a pretty good discussion here so far and of the type we wouldn't necessarily have had this been in the Other.
09-05-07 | 02:47 PM
#82
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
09-05-07 | 02:49 PM
#84
DVD Talk Legend
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,335
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: A few miles north of the Cape
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. 
...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.
...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.
09-05-07 | 02:53 PM
#85
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
09-05-07 | 02:55 PM
#86
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Surrounded by idiots...
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.
09-05-07 | 03:01 PM
#87
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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.
09-05-07 | 03:17 PM
#89
Moderator
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."
And both are voluntary. You appear to be arguing that mandatory bag searches are fine.
Blame the victim.
Last edited by nemein; 09-05-07 at 03:44 PM.
09-05-07 | 03:21 PM
#90
Moderator
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.
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.
Last edited by nemein; 09-05-07 at 03:49 PM.
09-05-07 | 03:40 PM
#91
DVD Talk Gold Edition
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.
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.
09-05-07 | 03:45 PM
#92
DVD Talk Legend
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.
09-05-07 | 03:48 PM
#93
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Jah-Wren Ryel; 09-05-07 at 04:00 PM.
09-05-07 | 03:55 PM
#94
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
09-05-07 | 03:55 PM
#95
DVD Talk Legend
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.
09-05-07 | 04:05 PM
#96
Moderator
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.
There should be nothing in that bag that isn't in the store. The footprint you leave behind in the register (wrt the CC#, "bonus" card transactions) is a great threat to your privacy/liberty than some poor slob working the door looking through your shopping bag. Again, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, it's not the start of a slippery slope to something else like the strip searches you were touting earlier in the thread.
You seem to want to argue that people "shouldn't sweat the small stuff" when it comes to privacy and civil rights.
09-05-07 | 04:08 PM
#97
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
09-05-07 | 04:17 PM
#98
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
09-05-07 | 04:18 PM
#99
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Surrounded by idiots...
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?
Serious questions here: are you a lawyer? Law student? Professor? Lawmaker?
09-05-07 | 04:18 PM
#100
Moderator
Righi is clearly the victim. ... Coerced searches are illegal. Unlawful restraint is illegal.