Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Self delete

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:34 PM
Original message
Self delete
Edited on Fri Sep-07-07 12:22 AM by Orrex
Props to Evoman for calling me on my double-standard.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Stealing is a crime.
Shopping in a store & paying for the merchandise you choose isn't.

You shouldn't be treated like a criminal if you haven't committed a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Self delete
Edited on Fri Sep-07-07 12:23 AM by Orrex
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Do the police have the right to detain anyone
without reasonable grounds for suspicion? No.

Neither do store personnel.

Thanks to that piece of paper called the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Self delete
Edited on Fri Sep-07-07 12:24 AM by Orrex
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Yes. Just as I think it's better to let a guilty man get off free
than to send an innocent man to the electric chair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. Absolutely. You can shoot them, too. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. You stole $100K from Circuit City?
Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. To what shoplifter are you referring?
The man I've heard being discussed today had a receipt for all his purchases.

Neither the manager nor anyone else witnessed him shoplifting. There was no reason to suspect him at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Self delete
Edited on Fri Sep-07-07 12:24 AM by Orrex
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. No. No one should be stopped without reasonable grounds for suspicion.
I'm worried that so many DUers seem to have no problem with the creeping authoritarianism in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Self delete
Edited on Fri Sep-07-07 12:25 AM by Orrex
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Do you know why the majority of criminal defense lawyers defend alleged criminals?
Edited on Fri Sep-07-07 12:07 AM by merh
It is not because they believe they are innocent and not all of the lawyers do it to make the money.

It is about protecting their constitutional rights. It is about ensuring that the state does not abuse their rights.

When one person's rights are violated, all of our rights are violated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. You're right, it will be interesting to hear their side.
In the meantime, have you read the book that John Dean (of Watergate fame) has been recommending? About the authoritarian mentality that's been growing in this country? Here's a link. It's quite good.


http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. Dude, you have a problem.......
Dial 1-888-555 1571..... You will be connected w/ another shoplifter...... the 2 of you can chat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. If the store has no reason to detain you, and they detain you.
You can sue them.

Why do you think it has to be the store manager?

Do you think any business should have the right to search you at will?

Jesus Christ, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. LMAO.

We will descend to serfdom without a whimper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. "Without a whimper." It certainly seems that way. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
14. What I *really* don't understand is....
what good calling the police would do.

*Police* aren't supposed to search you without probable cause... that is (supposedly) guaranteed by the US Constitution.

However, the Ohio law says that if there is probable cause, the store can detain the suspect.

I would think that in this case, there was probable cause. Even the blogger said that they were *surprised* that the receipts checked out okay.

To me, those arguing that the store should have let them go and called the police are essentially saying "the store didn't have probable cause, so they should have called the police, who, without probable cause, should have searched the suspect".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. There was no probable cause. The blogger said that the POLICE
were surprised. All that means is that the police are accustomed to the store people fingering actual shoplifters, not civil liberty proponents.

But in this case, no one had any particular reason to suspect this man of anything -- other than the fact that he chose not to hand over the receipt that he had just been given!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Other than the fact that the blogger was a little wordy....
what do you think was the significance of him explaining that he made two separate purchases?

Is it possible that he bought a surge protector at the back of the store, came to the front and made another purchase and then put the surge protector in the bag and walked out?

It wouldn't be the first time that someone has done something perfectly legal in an attempt to make others falsely accuse them so they could reap lawsuit rewards.

The fact that they were *suprised* that the purchases were legal indicates to me that they actually thought he was stealing from them. And, if you think someone is stealing from you, then I think you have the right to detain them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
15. Do you understand the concept of unlawful arrest or malicious prosecution?
The conventional wisdom among many in the security profession is that regardless of how security officers act, shoppers are opportunistic and will file lawsuits against retailers at the slightest provocation. However, evidence suggests that this is not the case. The authors conducted a review of 235 state-level lawsuits against retailers for false arrest in the United States between 1960 and 2004. The analysis shows that nearly all the suits were filed for justifiable reasons and that the suits were based more on the circumstances surrounding the incidents than on the depth of the retailers' pockets. This article discusses the motivations for the false-arrest suits and the basis for the damage awards.

Motivating factors.
Of the 235 cases studied, 63 percent were brought by shoppers who had been arrested for shoplifting, but had not actually shoplifted. In other words, more than half of the shoppers were arrested for shoplifting but were not caught in the act or found with stolen merchandise. Instead, they were arrested based only on the suspicion of shoplifting.

BASIS

Proof of actual shoplifting existed in only 34 percent of the cases. The remaining 3 percent of the cases did not reveal whether shoplifting had occurred or not.

All of the lawsuits examined in this study involved shoppers who alleged false arrest. But the shoppers filing suit also cited a variety of other charges, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and unlawful detention.

Shoppers most frequently brought lawsuits against retailers immediately after they were acquitted at trial for shoplifting or immediately after the shoplifting charges against them were dropped. And those cases most often involved some charges of mistreatment during the investigation.

Acquittal. Of the 235 cases studied, 47 percent of the shoppers sued after they were acquitted at trial or the retailers had subsequently dropped the charges. This finding suggests that if retailers have weak cases or lack hard evidence, it is best not to have the suspects arrested. And if a company does go forward with prosecution, it should invest the resources required to help the prosecutors make a convincing case.

Mistreatment. Twenty-six percent of the 235 shoppers sued because of the way they were treated during their investigations. Allegations of mistreatment included excessive force, battery, and sexual abuse.

In 21 percent of the cases, plaintiffs were physically abused, and the abuse was often egregious. For example, one private security officer killed a male youth by striking him in the head during the investigation. Other plaintiffs were assaulted, sexually abused, or strip-searched by private security officers. Not surprisingly, this type of misconduct by employees often results in large judgments against the retailer (see damage awards section).

Other issues. Though acquittals and mistreatment were the major motivators for most plaintiffs, other factors sometimes led to lawsuits. For example, five percent of the shoppers alleged that they had been victims of racial profiling.

A fairly large number of shoppers alleged malicious prosecution, but the courts found evidence of a setup by store personnel in only 1 percent of the total cases.

Five percent of the cases involved arrests of groups of people shopping together, where only one shopper in the group had taken something. This type of arrest almost always prompted a lawsuit by the persons not holding the stolen merchandise at the time of the arrest.

Three percent of the shoppers sued on a legal technicality that did not relate to anything done by security personnel. For example, some of the shoppers sued to challenge other evidence, such as drugs or weapons taken by the police at the time of the arrest and offered as evidence at trial. Other shoppers challenged instructions given by the judge or statements made by opposing counsel.

Damage awards.
Of the 235 lawsuits filed against retailers, approximately one-third resulted in damage awards to the shoppers. Nine percent received nominal awards less than $5,000; 10 percent received between $5,000 and $50,000; 6 percent received awards between $50,001 and $300,000; and 2 percent of the plaintiffs received awards greater than $300,000. The amount of the award in another 2 percent of the cases was not disclosed.


More at this link 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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
21. You can't accuse others of exaggerating an issue, and then come back at us
with this.

Who the hell is able to steal that much merchandise??? I find the question ridiculous.

And yes, if no one sees him, if they have no evidence on camera, then the store is shit out of luck. They can't detain him. I'm sure they can call the cops, but the store can't hold him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Ouch! I deserved that.
Time for bed, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC