Primer: How to protect your civil liberties at Circuit City.

[Ravy]

Go into any Circuit City, and wave around a Colt 45 and an AK-47. You have a right to keep and bear arms. Use it or lose it!

Stand near the checkout. Tell every customer you see that stuff is much cheaper at Costco. Provide directions to the nearest Costco if they seem interested. You have the right to free speech.

Sure. You will probably be arrested. Sue the cops, sue the store. This is America. You may get a sympathetic jury and win some money. But at least doing that you won't have time to post ridiculous arguments on DU for a while.



edit: Added "at Circuit City" to the title

[TahitiNut]

1. "you won't have time to post ridiculous arguments on DU for a while."

Wow. Of motes and entire redwoods! :eyes:

[Ravy]

2. Sorry, I don't understand the reference.

And Googling "motes" didn't help much.

[TahitiNut]

4. Matthew 7:3. Romans 2:1

Newly-arrived on this planet??

[The Vinyl Ripper]

6. LOL, n/t

[Ravy]

10. Depends on which planet you are currently on, I suppose *grin*

I thought (after the poster below explained the reference a bit) that you were agreeing with me that a Circuit City policy is a ridiculous thing to argue civil rights on, particularly when there are much more glaring examples such as "free-speech zones" and "warrantless wiretapping of US citizens" that we could be expending the energy on.

Those are intrusions by our government and (supposedly) protected by the Bill of Rights.

[TahitiNut]

13. I guess you missed the arrest.

:shrug:

[Ravy]

18. No, I agree that the arrest (as described) seems out of line, and posted so...

but I *suspect* there is more to it than the blogger said. It would be interesting to see the arrest report to see if there was.

I hate the thought of "presenting papers".

[notadmblnd]

57. I think this has gotten so much response because it is something everyone has experienced

not everyone has been herded into a no protest zone and the warrant less wiretapping issue is over many peoples heads. But everyone has experience being stopped in a store and therefor can speak to the subject. You have a choice to participate in the discussion or not. Apparently you've made a conscious decision to participate. You've been sucked into the conversation when you could have just passed it up and spent your time on more important issues. So why is it that you can waste your time on this non-issue but you belittle others that waste theirs? Is it because they disagree with your opinion? That is what I find ridiculous.

[orleans]

40. (and for those of us without bibles to rush off and look up the reference,

i guess we should just assume...?)

[TahitiNut]

43. Got Google?

It's basic web literacy. Everyone has a bible. And a Koran. And the Tao Te Ching.

Matthew 7:3-5 (King James Version)
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Romans 2:1 (King James Version)
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. That's pretty obscure.

Kind of granular to galaxy. :-) MKJ

[EFerrari]

63. LOL!

[sakabatou]

5. Contender for a DUzy

[alittlelark]

7. Nah, it's reactionary and droll.

[JeffR]

9. Droll's usually good enough for a DUzy

though, yeah, I don't like reactionary much, myself.

[TahitiNut]

11. reactionary + snark = flame-bait

:shrug:

[JeffR]

16. Herein the incendiary nature of wit, even in the service of

mendacity.

And don't give up on your responses here: the thread could benefit hugely from them.

(PS - First and last time I'll reveal when I'm watching a thread for DUzy-worthy stuff. As Chance the Gardiner said, "I like to watch.")

[JeffR]

17. See response #12, for example

That's what I'm talkin' about!

[alittlelark]

19. DUzy - worth this ain't

It ain't worth the time I'm spending on thi..................

[JeffR]

20. I've worked 20-some hours in the past two days

and tonight I'm still wading through the flood-tide of Larry Craig threads, and I'm happy to spend some time reading about this inane non-story.

But that's just me.:)

[alittlelark]

26. Take a deep breath....

..... look around.

[JeffR]

54. Amen

Got myself locked into the DUzies some time ago, and can't get out.

Still, I'm enjoying a little pseudo-R&R.

[TahitiNut]

25. Agreed.

Consider it nominated. :rofl:

[orleans]

41. but you gotta admit the second paragraph was good

"Stand near the checkout. Tell every customer you see that stuff is much cheaper at Costco. Provide directions to the nearest Costco if they seem interested. You have the right to free speech."

i laughed out loud at that one. okay, i chuckled. but i chuckled out loud.

[JeffR]

55. Same here

and from there I was hooked on this thread.

[JeffR]

8. Dang, sakabatou, I was just lurking in this thread

waiting to see which way it's going to go. Lotsa potential here, though.;-)

So far...

[jberryhill]

12. I'm with you brother

As long as I can smoke and conduct religious services in the Home Theater section.

[Ravy]

14. Forgot those. Thanks for the reminder!!!

:toast:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

15. Smoke what? n/t

[TahitiNut]

27. Freshly-disemboweled roosters ... seeking product guidance from the FSM.

I'd want to anoint my body with oils, too.

[jberryhill]

36. My uh, um.... religious sacrament.... yeah, that's it /nt

[havocmom]

21. Actually, a private business can insist you not bring a weapon inside their place.

That is THEIR right, and I support that too.

It's about abusing or portecting the rights of ourselves and others. I guess progressives don't give a rat's ass about that anymore?

:wtf:

Will Pitt is sitting somewhere laughing his ass off.... I should buy him a drink. He made some pretty accurate observations.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. OK, forget Circuit City and protect your rights at...

Wal-Mart, where they sell guns.

Can't very well stop you from carrying the gun you just bought there, can they?

[havocmom]

29. Don't need to buy no Walmart guns

Got enough already ;)

[Hangingon]

86. WalMart can prohibit you from bring a gun into the store.

If you return a gun, they will have a manager meet you at the door and carry the gu. In Texas any business can post the standard 30.06 sign and prohibit concealed carry.

[Ravy]

24. If you don't have the absolute protection of the first or second amendment

in a private business, what makes you think you have the absolute right to the fourth amendment?

[havocmom]

31. THEY have rights too

Much as I like 'packing heat' ;) I do respect that others can insist I not do it on their property.

Actually, I have helped disarm people who didn't share that respect for rules on the personal property of others.

And I shoot.

And I do not show my receipt and bag contents except at the membership store where I, by the act of joining their private retail membership, agreed to their rules.

Rights, choices, responsibilities. I love 'em all.

edited cuz I am too tired to operate spell check.

[Ravy]

33. They just don't have the right...

to make sure you paid for all of the items are walking out with. Correct?

[havocmom]

65. They have the right to challenge you HONESTLY if they think you stole something

They would rather YOU relinquish your rights to privacy so they don't have to take any risk. They want to make YOU the victim of YOUR own violation of rights by surrendering those rights. Saves them a bundle in lawsuits or they wouldn't be doing it.

If they want to search you and your possessions, they have the right to come out with their reason, it has to be legitimate or they put themselves at risk and they damned well know it.

That they want to convince people it is policy, and policy must be obeyed, is evidence that they are considering all people guilty until proven innocent, but they want the innocent to have no claim against them. Last I heard, that was SUPPOSED to be a no-no in America.

If they do feel they are being victimized by a thief, they challenge that suspected thief and that person does show them proof of purchase, THEN and then do so or call law enforcement and make a complaint that the person stole something. THAT is their right.

If they abuse that right and start openly accusing innocent people, they will get sued. THAT is why they would rather condition the people to give up their own rights.

Meanwhile, mounted horsemen broke up a small group of dissenters who wanted to show the press that they were within the law and used the legal adhesive for anti-war posters. They wanted to show that there was an abuse of power when they were fined an exorbitant fee for using what was legal. A handful of citizens who would not sit silent while their rights were trounced on and a couple hands full of reporters were scattered by horsemen. Ah, another abuse of power. An escalation of abuse of power.

See, it all starts adding up. Give up a bit. They abuse a bit more. Give up a little more. They abuse a little more.

When do people take a stand? When they are facing being shoved into the boxcar themselves?

It is important because it is conditioning to make people accept abuse of power and authority.

My momma didn't give birth to doormats.

[Ravy]

66. The point is that the store has rights, too.

Which you have also asserted.

When competing rights come into play, reasonable accomodation should be made.

We are talking about two entities with rights and equal protection under the law in the Circuit City case. I believe Circuit City has the right to take measures to protect against theft of their property. You and I can do things on our property that the Government is forbidden from doing.

[havocmom]

67. They have right. You have rights

You have the right to throw your rights in the toilet.

Some of us won't do that and we won't go along just so the flushers feel less guilt over all the flushing.

Some shit floats.

[ComerPerro]

32. no kidding, I keep wondering about that little disconnect

I brought that gun thing up in another thread, and was replied to with something to the effect of "Private businesses can refuse to let you carry a gun, it is their right, DUH!" kind of bullshit. Coming from people who say the store has no right to threaten or infringe on any of your rights!

[havocmom]

69. It's about property rights. They have a right to not have weapons on their's

I have a right not to surrender mine for inspection unless they are willing to make a formal complaint (and take the risk that goes along with doing it indiscriminately)

[merh]

28. actually, there are "progressives" here that think they are the

only ones that know how to be progressives. I've seen the same people involved in the "just show the damned receipt" sect that oppose any form of outrage or protest that doesn't fit their mold.

They will ridicule all others and waste an entire day doing so, while screaming "it's no big deal, get over it".

It's pretty friggin sad, but hey, at least DU isn't an echo chamber like the rigthie forums like to say it is.

:shrug:

[TreasonousBastard]

34. And some of us "progressives" wonder about...

other "progressives" who get all het up about security checking their bags. Do they refuse to take their shoes off or empty their pockets in the airport? Seems to me shoplifting is actually a more immediate problem than terrorism, but what do I know? Also seems to me that dissing the rent-a-cop is a lot safer than arguing with airport security. But, again, what do I know?

There's battles, and there's battles-- you pick 'em and decide to where to draw the line, but don't be surprised if everyone doesn't agree with that line.

[merh]

35. Seems to me you don't know a whole hell of a lot about

the retail industry and your ability to prioritize is a slight bit off.

here's a link for you http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:yHI1ZU7n8rMJ:www.securitymanagement.com/library/001663.html+shoplifting+charges+dropped+malicious+prosecution&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

And I don't know when the last time a shoplifter was alleged to have caused the deaths of thousands, but that could be my failure to stay informed. If you have a link, please provide it.

.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. Several years in retail with two as store manager...

where shrinkage was a huge problem.

Shoplifting is still a major problem, and bag checks are just one thing retilers use. If anyone thinks that's a problem, make the stores get rid of floorwalkers, cameras, and security chips, too.

And don't even think of making specious comparisons of death vs. money when talking about invasions of our privacy. We already accept many exceptions to our rights to personal privacy, most of which most people don't even know are out there until they are in the middle of one, and bag checking as a tool to control shoplifting is one of the more minimally invasive ones.

Molehill, meet Mountain.

[merh]

38. Molehill?

So civil liberties are molehills?

At least now I know where you are coming from, as a retailing you believe you have the right to violate the civil liberties to protect your merchandize. You have forgotten that it is your job to provide the service and that the customers are your concern, not the merchandize.

Did you read the link I provided, studies show the malicious prosecution verdicts and out of court settlements are more costly than the petty thefts. The policy of asking everyone for the receipt is the same as accusing everyone of being a thief, it is bad policy.

.

[Ravy]

39. The link that said that 2/3 of the false arrest lawsuits resulted in no damages awarded?

And I would speculate that the majority of the ones that did result in damages involved more than simple detainment, such as the physical and sexual abuse mentioned in the article.

[merh]

44. Of course there would have to be damages for the plaintiff

to be able to recover, that is a given. The point of the article (written by a security firm for retailers) is that bad policies of the retailers are expensive.

IMHO, the policy of stopping everyone is just bad policy. What is worse, is the members here telling others what they should be concerned about and mocking those who worry about the violations of their civil liberties.

.

[Ravy]

46. My point is that there are such BIG violations going on.

This just seems to be a poor example in which to take a stand on.

First of all, it is private property we are talking about, not a government intrusion (for the Circuit City part). I have to agree with the blogger (if he is telling the whole story) about the policeman requiring him to produce a driver's license once it was determined that he did not commit a crime.

Secondly, the stores have rights, too. As my sarcastic OP tried to point out, you do not have absolute constitutional protections when you are on private property.

I admit that it could be construed to be a fine line, but there are glaring examples (free speech zones, warrantless wiretapping) that are WAY over the line that most seem to have given up on and are goverment encroachments of our civil liberties.

[merh]

48. It is your opinion that it is a poor example and that is all it is.

To some, taking this one stand can empower them to take others.

And a corporation cannot detain me without cause no matter how many times you want to say they can.

[Ravy]

50. You are assuming the "without cause" part.

Which is your opinion as well.

Taking a bad stand can set your positon back, as well.

So let's just say that this guy goes to court and loses... or sues and incurs tens of thousands in legal bills that he can't get replinished by his pleas for donations. Will that empower Circuit City into even more agressive policies? Will it cause activists to think twice before testing the legal boundaries of their rights?

[merh]

58. As I have said, I object to the policy

I don't really care about this fellow and don't know the facts to be able to make a call.

You guys think showing him to be a creep or even culpable makes the policy correct or justified, it does not.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Give it a rest-- as a card carrying ACLU member and...

civil liberties advocate for more years than half of DU has been alive, I didn't need to read that little piece to know that some stores take things too far.

And I don't put bag checks anywhere close to overturning Miranda or expanding Terry searches on the scale of disappearing rights.

This has nothing to do with civil rights and liberties-- stores have the right to protect their merchandise from theft. Case closed.

Yes, some of them have gone too far, but most are trying to balance customer rights with security. If you don't like what they're doing, go ahead and run your own store the way you think it should be run.

[merh]

45. You are mistaken.

They don't have the right to harass their customers, to demand they cooperate before they can leave or to accuse them of wrong doing without probable cause.

Relative to your last sentence, all I have to say is :rofl:

If you don't like America, you can leave. Yup, that sounds about right. :rofl:

[Ravy]

47. To me, they seem to have had probable cause.

After all, the blogger made a point of saying that they were *surprised* that the receipts checked out. To me, that means that they legitimately (although wrongly) *thought* he was a shoplifter.

Also, just by the way he asked the policemen about it and described how he had, in fact, made two purchases, I am wondering if he purposely acted in a suspicious manner (other than refusing to show his receipts). I didn't read that he did them specifically one right after another. He may have bought the surge protector and carried it around the store for 10 minutes and then made his other purchase.

BTW, the Circuit City where I live doesn't stop people on the way out. I don't know if the one in question stops everyone, or just the people that they suspect of shoplifting.

[merh]

49. Thinking someone is a shoplifter IS NOT probable cause.

You don't even know what it is your are talking about if you can type that with a straight face.

BTW, I am talking about the policy in general. I don't really care about this man's story. I have a problem with any store that demands my receipt before I am allowed to leave.

[Ravy]

51. That is for a judge or jury to decide.

FWIW, I wouldn't shop at those stores if it offended me.

[merh]

59. FWIW

Why post in threads that discuss issues that bother you?

Nice dodge, if you don't like America, you can always leave. I so love that argument. :crazy:

[Ravy]

64. I don't know about the others, but I do it to enlighten you. nt

*grin*

[merh]

74. Well, when will you enlighten me?

I'm waiting anxiously.

:hi:

[havocmom]

68. Hey, me too. And I still won't show the receipt unless they make a charge

THAT SIMPLE.

I have busted shoplifters. Good busts. I have not had to resort to abusing honest people. I also lowered shrinkage significantly without having to do that.

Mountain, meet reality

[havocmom]

70. merh, does it seem to you that some 'progressives' are shrinking the tent?

Keep making ripples and waves. :thumbsup:

[merh]

81. Hell, not only are they shrinking it

they are guarding the door and keeping out those that don't think like they do.

If they had their drothers, they would pick and chose my rocks for me. ;)

:hi: :hug:

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Whatever you do, don't...

dare tap your foot in the restroom.

Getting arrested for soliciting gay sex will get you villified and get the police report all over the internet. No one will believe your story.

Getting arrested for pissing off store security will get them villified and get your blog all over the internet. The police report will be irrelevant and everyone will believe your story.

[ComerPerro]

30. more importantly, while exercising your first and second amendment rights,

politely ask the cashier to empty out the register. It is the cashier's right to refuse, but who knows, the cashier might give you some cash!

[mhatrw]

52. Way to avoid the actual issues at hand!

This issues at stake are clear and perfectly stark even if you find them minor and/or trivial. Do you actually believe that stores should have the right to detain innocent shoppers who refuse to show their receipts? Do you actually believe that innocent shoppers who have done nothing suspicious have no right to refuse a corporate police search?

If you stick to the issues at hand and stop personalizing, you'll notice that what you are actually saying is that any right you personally don't mind having violated is one that no else should mind having violated. And how self-centered (and authoritarian) is that?

[Ravy]

53. Not at all.

I am saying that on private property you do not have all of the rights you might think you do-- even ones guaranteed by the Constitution.

And who said this blogger did not do anything suspicious?

I think stores have the right to secretly film you, to make you produce multiple forms of identification, to kick you out of their store if you don't abide by their rules and policies, to forbid you from entering, and yes, to detain you if they have reasonable suspicion that you didn't pay for all of your items and try to walk out with them.

The blogger himself said that they were indeed *surprised* to find out he had not stolen from them. If he chooses to sue, it will be up to a court to determine whether that suspicion was reasonable.

[mhatrw]

56. Once again, you are blatantly avoiding the issue.

Forget about the "blogger" and his specific story for a second. Let's see if we have any common ground here at all.

1) I contend that simply not showing your receipt and/or refusing to have your bags searched is not probable cause for suspicion because this would be an obvious Catch-22. ("We don't have probable cause to search your bags, but if you don't submit to our request to search them, then we do.") Do you agree or disagree?

2) I contend that stores do not have the right to detain innocent shoppers who refuse to show their receipts and/or have their bags searched. Do you agree or disagree?

3) I contend that innocent shoppers who have done nothing suspicious have the right to refuse a corporate police search as they leave a store's premises. Do you agree or disagree?

[Ravy]

62. Avoiding your hypothetical issue?

1) Disagree.
If a store has a policy to check receipts upon exiting, then they have that right unless forbidden by law.

2. Disagree.
I think they should be able to ask for the receipt, and if unwilling to show it ask that you stay long enough to return the items and get your refund.

3. Agree.
But they need to leave the items in question and be given a refund.

Well, we have at least one in common. Let's see how you do on the two we disagree on.

1. I contend that if you do not have probable cause to ask to be shown a receipt on exiting would make it so that calling the police is a Catch-22. The police are forbidden by the Constitution from conducting a search without probable cause. Probable cause is a standard outlined in the Bill of Rights to protect citizens against the Government, and is not applicable to corporations. Agree or Disagree.

2. I contend that stores have the right to detain guilty shoppers who refuse to show their receipts and/or have their bags searched. Do you agree or disagree?

[mhatrw]

71. The lesson begins ...

1) Disagree. If a store has a policy to check receipts upon exiting, then they have that right unless forbidden by law.

I didn't ask if the store had the right to check receipts. Clearly the store owners can ASK whatever they want to ask. What I asked was whether simply not showing your receipt and/or refusing to have your bags searched is not probable cause for suspicion of shoplifting. Is it or isn't it?

2. Disagree. I think they should be able to ask for the receipt, and if unwilling to show it ask that you stay long enough to return the items and get your refund.

That's a Catch-22 as well. You already purchased the item. They already agreed to the purchase. They have no probable cause to detain. So why isn't it false imprisonment if they try to keep you from exiting the store against your will?

3. Agree. But they need to leave the items in question and be given a refund.

That's a Catch-22 as well. You already purchased the item. They already agreed to the purchase. They have no probable cause to detain. So why isn't it false imprisonment if they try to keep you from exiting the store against your will?

1. I contend that if you do not have probable cause to ask to be shown a receipt on exiting would make it so that calling the police is a Catch-22. The police are forbidden by the Constitution from conducting a search without probable cause. Probable cause is a standard outlined in the Bill of Rights to protect citizens against the Government, and is not applicable to corporations. Agree or Disagree.

California penal code says:

490.5 (f) (1) A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.

Is that clear enough for you, Justice Bork?

2. I contend that stores have the right to detain guilty shoppers who refuse to show their receipts and/or have their bags searched. Do you agree or disagree?

That's a Catch-22. Stores have the right to detain any shopper if and only if they have "probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises."

[Ravy]

77. YOUR lesson begins...

Citing California law as applicable in an Ohio case is your first mistake.

However, I concede that Ohio has practically the same law. I am not sure all states do.

Why do you think this is? If you are guaranteed that right by the US Constitution, then why do you need separate laws governing it?

The answer is, you are not guaranteed that right by the Constution. The states *may* choose to limit the store's rights.

Probable cause will be decided by a judge or jury. Is refusing to show your receipt probable cause? I would suspect that would depend on the judge and jury. Most of these lawsuits are decided in favor of the stores.

Is that clear enough for you?

[mhatrw]

82. Did I ever say this was a constitutional issue? No.

Probable cause will be decided by a judge or jury. Is refusing to show your receipt probable cause? I would suspect that would depend on the judge and jury. Most of these lawsuits are decided in favor of the stores.

Bullshit. Show me a single case in which the simple refusal to submit to a receipt/package inspection was ruled probable cause for suspicion of theft. It's an obvious Catch-22, as in "we don't have probable cause to search your bags, but the fact that you didn't submit to our voluntary request to search them gives us probable cause."

[Ravy]

85. In the authoritive article that Merh presented...

2/3rds of the people that brought suit for such things were denied any relief in court. Of the 1/3 that prevailed, there were further incidents beyond simple detainment (physical and sexual abuse of the detainee, for instance).

So, that article can document hundreds of cases.

[mhatrw]

88. That's because the courts ruled that the damages were not significant.

Whether or not the customers won monetary awards is not the issue here. The issue is that a store can not detain a customer against the customer's will merely because the customer refuses to submit to a receipt/bag inspection.

[Ravy]

89. So, simple detaining is ruled as no damage?

Then what is the fuss?

The courts would seem to indicate that the stores *can* detain a customer against their will in such disputes.

[mhatrw]

91. No, they can NOT.

However, civil suits of this nature are often settled without monetary awards. That doesn't give stores the right to detain a customer without probable cause -- just no deterrence against doing so. It's like suing me for walking on your lawn against your clearly stated wishes. You'll win the case, but you almost certainly won't be getting any relief other than the judge/jury telling me to stop walking on your lawn.

[Ravy]

93. I wouldn't put us through all that legal hassle and expense

just to have someone else tell you not to walk on my lawn.

It will be interesting in this case (if it goes to court) to see whether they tell the store to stop checking or tell the blogger to just show the damn receipt. I suspect if it is the latter we will not hear.

[mhatrw]

94. They will tell the store to inform its receipt checkers that the check is voluntary.

The guy will probably get an apology as well: http://consumerist.com/consumer/followups/tigerdirect-apologizes-for-unlawfully-detaining-customer-for-refusing-to-show-receipt-293353.php

Monetary relief is a completely different issue, but since he was arrested it's a distinct possibility.

[Demintheusa]

60. Making a joke at the fact the COP yes the COP violated his rights

all to many people had a hard on for the Receipt part I don't know why, but that wasn't the issue it was the COP

[Ravy]

61. Have to agree with you there.

[mhatrw]

72. It's both. See above. n/t

[LynneSin]

75. Are you sure about that

You're assuming that the blogger has posted the entire story, not just his side of the story

[Zodiak]

73. flame bait

I just do not understand why people need to start with their own thread of strawmen.

[NoodleyAppendage]

76. Please explain why you are SO WILLING to take it up the a*** by authority figures?

I guess you are in full agreement with the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, and other draconian measures taken in a vain attempt to "keep us save." It's people such as yourself who would be branded Torys or traitors by our colonial forefathers. Good luck getting your position in Homeland Security, syncophant.

J

[Ravy]

78. Please explain to me why you think Circuit City is an authority figure.

That one really boggles me.

[NoodleyAppendage]

79. The problem is...YOUR POSITION suggests that you think Circuit City is an authority figure.

If you are so willing to give up your rights to Circuit City, then it follows that you would go even further for the government.

How come Circuit City gets to assume "guilty before innocent," when it has been the system of law in this country to hold to the opposite?

J

[Ravy]

80. No, I think they have the right to set reasonable policies for behavior on their property.

Just as I do on mine.

I think restaurants can make me wear a tie, or refuse me service if I go into there without shirts or shoes.

I think stores have the right to inspect my bags on entering or exiting the store to ensure that I am not taking their property, to secretly film me as I walk through the store, and to ask for identification.

Limiting the right of stores to take reasonable measures to protect their property is the issue here.

[mhatrw]

83. Any place of business has the right to refuse you service for any reason.

That's not the issue here. The issue here is whether a place of business that did NOT refuse you service has the right to falsely imprison you for simply refusing to be treated like a potential criminal as you try to exit their premises. Businesses do not enjoy this right.

[Ravy]

84. imprison?

We must be talking about separate incidents here.

The issue I was talking about had the guy detained for a short period of time in an effort to assertain the facts. He made a purchase of one item, then tried to walk out with two. When he was confronted, he refused to cooperate with what I would consider a reasonable request.

In the case I am talking about, they even expressed surprise that he had indeed paid for both items, meaning to me that his actions rightly or wrongly led them to falsely believe he was attempting to steal from them.

[mhatrw]

87. False imprisonment means detaining an innocent person against his will.

A store can not detain a customer against his will unless the store has probable cause to suspect shoplifting. The mere refusal to submit to a receipt/bag inspection does not constitute probable cause. Nor does unwarranted suspicion (as in "we just thought he was guilty") constitute probable cause. The standard for probable cause for suspecting shoplifting is perceiving the customer doing something that looks like shoplifting. This issue is cut and dried legally. What about it don't you understand?

[Ravy]

90. You are making a statement as to what constitutes probable cause.

You are assuming that:

a) there is an applicable "probable clause" statute in the jusisdiction in question (there does appear to be one in Ohio)

and

b) that you or anyone else besides the judge and jury in the case can determine what probable cause is or is not in any particular case or jurisdiction.


Does being observed making a purchase of a single item and then sticking another item in the bag as you walk out constitute probable cause?

[mhatrw]

92. Google is your friend, my friend.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/shopliftingPC.htm

Probable Cause Steps

To establish a solid base for probable cause, and prevent false arrest claims, there are six universally accepted steps that a merchant should be follow before detaining someone suspected of shoplifting:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, carry away or convert your merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
5. You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store

Does that sound ANYTHING like simply refusing to submit to a receipt/bag inspection to you?

[NoodleyAppendage]

95. He/she doesn't care. I suspect he/she engages in the same "checking" behavior at his/her business.

It's apparent that someone is miffed that he/she may not be free to abuse customers. If Circuit City is wrong, then it might set a standard that this poster doesn't like.

When jerks ask me to check my bags, I politely say no then state "I don't appreciate being treated like a criminal. Good day." Then, I walk out the store. NEVER have I had an experience like the Circuit City guy. Typically, the "checkers" just move out of my way.

J

[Ravy]

97. I don't work in retail at all.

It is just that when your rights come up against someone else's, I feel some reasonable accomodation should be made.

But, as is indicated by your speculation that I like to abuse customers, what is perfectly apparent for you may have no basis in fact.

[Sanctified]

96. The first and second amendments do not apply to private property. n/t