Isn't there a simpler lesson to be learned from this Circuit City business?

[jpgray]

First, pick your battles. If all this was about was a douchebag refusing to comply with a bag-receipt check, I hope I am right in thinking this wouldn't even cause a ripple on DU (meaning we'd have just -one- one contentious flamewar thread on the subject instead of two dozen :P). I'm not at all convinced receipt checks are a case of corporate power destroying our civil liberties. Reasonable searches on private property are rather customary to prevent the commission of a crime (showing ID to buy alcohol is one example), and checking to ensure the contents of a bag match the receipt by any standard of "offensive" searches is hardly invasive or degrading.

The police officer's demand to see ID, however, is -not- defensible. It is however understandable when you consider how most cops think. Cops don't see a lot of people defiantly opposing a reasonable corporate invasion based on a noble defense of civil liberties. They -do- see a lot of people resisting such policies to aid the commission of a crime. A good example of how this police "common sense" can go wrong (as it did in this case) is the VT massacre--the early murder was not seen as a prelude to mass murder because such killings almost always aren't. The cops had a hunch that the boyfriend did it because 99% of the time they turn out to be exactly right. In that case, they threw out all other options to pursue that theory, and were very wrong. Now take our Circuit City example--this guy behaved very suspiciously, in the manner of a shoplifter, by refusing a search and behaving with a lot of belligerence. He had every right to do so, but being uncooperative to a cop usually means you are trying to commit a crime. This assumption was wrong and the request for ID was wrong, but it's fairly easy to understand that when the cop saw this sort of situation before, it probably indicated criminal behavior nine times out of ten.

In my view this case would be similar to resisting a far more invasive and arguably unreasonable search that goes on every day--the search of luggage and sometimes one's person at the airport. There's not necessarily any probable cause, nor any warrant, etc., but I imagine resisting such a search and arguing (validly in my view) it violates your civil liberties would cost you:

1. Your seat on the plane.

2. A lot of hours of suspicious security/police people asking for ID, wanting to check your luggage, etc.

Because avoiding such a search is consistent with the attempt to commit a crime, no one is likely to assume you're just making a statement about unreasonable corporate practices. They will view you with suspicion based on their past experiences.

Now, the airport checks and the receipt checks are very different, and so they aren't directly comparable, but they do have a few similarities. The comparisons to Rosa Parks, however, or fascist "papers, please" moments I find offensive, as the scope of this intrusion on civil liberties seems infinitely more benign and far less invasive or tragic. Thus comparing our Circuit City incident to them degrades their meaning while artificially inflating the importance of this relatively minor infraction.

What do you think?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I think we have become a police state.

Acts of submission that in my youth in the 60's and 70's would have been laughingly unthinkable are now routine. Undoing this crap is not even on the radar screen. The future, absent some serious change, looks amazingly bleak.

[jpgray]

2. Well, internment camps and segregation were a bit worse than receipt checks

Or are you talking about the indignities suffered by the WASP population? :D

[Hydra]

3. Ever hear of "slippery slope"?

I hope you don't think it can't happen here.

[jpgray]

4. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy

Which just means because things are going in one direction doesn't -absolutely- prove they will continue down that road. But haven't we come rather far from the days of random street lynchings if a receipt check followed by an irritated cop overstepping his bounds is the cause celebre of civil liberties violation on DU? How does that fit in with the slippery slope?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Read on how tirranny rises in ANY country

it is not impossed, but done slowly with thigs to get the population used to it

This is part of the process of getting you used to this

So are the cameras all over the place... which lead to a surveillance society

Oh and I will keep refusing to show receipt every time I shop...

And if they cross the line of trying to force me to show receipt... boy there are lawyers who make their living on things like this.

[jpgray]

11. Will you have your bags searched at the airport? Do you show ID to buy a drink?

If so, how are those things significantly different? (They are, but in my view they are more invasive than the CC example).

[nadinbrzezinski]

The reason why they check your bags at the airport

is ostensibly for public safety of the commons (and it would be if they checked the belly of the plane which they don't)

I don't drink so I don't have to show ID... and I am of an age where if they asked I'd feel honored

But quite frankly our attitudes regarding alcohol and who can drink it (not drunk driving by the way) have far more to do with our puritan attitudes than a long history of alcohol consumption, that includes the colonies, where everybody drank, even children.

[Pithlet]

37. It's a store policy. Nothing more.

Their policy to ask people to show receipts is no different than any other millions of policies that corporations come up with every day. It doesn't have the weight of the law behind it. There is a law in place that minors can't buy alcohol, and there are laws in place that state bars can and sometimes have to ask you for ID. There are safety laws governing what you can take on an airplane. There isn't a law that states people have comply with a store's request to look at a bag or receipt. That's the difference. Therefore, the store cannot force you to comply. They can ban you from ever coming back. But they can't act like you're a criminal, because you broke no law. Failing to comply with a store's policy isn't a crime, unless that policy has the weight of the law behind it, like ID checking for liquor.

[Magrittes Pipe]

16. Read on how to spell "tyranny."

;)

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Well I am on the laptop

which is dying and over the wireless

So there

:-P

[Magrittes Pipe]

40. It happens.

Still, I doubt any tyranny is in play here. AFAIC, CC is within their rights to try to prevent loss through theft, and I don't buy some anonymous blogger's recounting of the arrest.

Here's the thing: Maybe you don't have to show ID -- plenty of people don't have ID, so I doubt it's mandatory -- but if you're an over-the-top dick to a cop, he'll run your ass in for obstructing an officer. Especially after calling him to Circuit City to investigate their (legal) actions, taking him away from what he should be doing: fighting crime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. I come from a police family

and have worked on two sides of an international border

IN Mexico if a CC employee or home depot or office depot, asks for a receipt, I will comply

Under Napoleonic law I am assumed guilty until... you know the rest

In the US I have a right to say no

As to cops... as I said I've worked along side them

Trust me, I know my rights and how to behave around them

[Magrittes Pipe]

75. Then you know...

...when asserting your rights, do so respectfully, and in a non-obstructionist, non-confrontational manner.

[Taverner]

12. Although you are correct in stating the slippery slope is a logical fallacy

It is very possible for a state to move from random ID checks to prison camps. Especially if that state:

- Starts a huge industry and incarcerates a higher percentage of the population over time, even with crime rates going down.

- Starts slowly chipping away at civil liberties

- Promotes an agenda of jingoism and faux patriotism

This is exactly what Nazi Germany did. At first, dissenters were merely required to register with the state. Then they were denied their jobs. Then they were rounded up and arrested. Soon after, they were killed. Hitler's first target was not the Jews, but the Communists and Leftists.

[jpgray]

32. Was this guy targeted because he was of some social group? Or because his behavior was suspicious?

And resembled that of a shoplifter? The cop overstepped his bounds (again based on the blogger's word), but isn't it simpler than some grand scheme to destroy civil liberties?

[Taverner]

49. I wouldn't chalk it up as a grand scheme to destroy civil liberties

But let me also counter that most cops aren't too interested in civil liberties, and if you give them an inch they will take a mile. If cops could get away with secret interrogations and kangaroo courts, they would. This is precisely why we need a no tolerance policy towards civil liberty infringements.

[jpgray]

51. Like you, I am preternaturally suspicious of cops

Anyone with that kind of implicit authority should raise hackles. But I think even a decent, normal, non-blowjob-soliciting cop who is frustrated and suspicious can make this sort of bad decision without it being part and parcel of the worst police attitudes of entitlement and lawless behavior.

[Taverner]

61. I understand - my dad was a cop

The biggest reason they don't care for civil liberties has nothing to do with hating "those goddamn hippies" (although they are no fan of them either) but because it seems inconvenient and frustrating to them. Reading the arrested their miranda rights and abiding by them takes patience, something cops aren't hired for.

However, you strip those away and there is no accountability. Its like vending machines. Chances are, most of us won't steal. But if you left out the food with an honor system, and no accountability, the vendors would go broke.

[Hydra]

You think street lynchings aren't happening?

What do you think we have hate crimes legislation to deal with? Ask the GLBT community how they're feeling lately...or any fringe group that doesn't have much mainstream support.

"Which just means because things are going in one direction doesn't -absolutely- prove they will continue down that road."

You can't prove an absolute until it happens. Absolute is 100.0000....%.

Frankly, though, if you're ready to argue in favor of people that violated laws, we're done for. Cooked. No number of people like me that argue for absolute rule of law can prevail against people that are OK with arbitrary authority.

[jpgray]

18. While hate crimes continue, mass public lynchings as far as I know have come to a halt

Certainly the police aren't as obliged to look the other way. How does that fit in with the slippery slope? Are we going in a good direction one way and a bad direction in the other? Or might there be no grand schematic pattern that dictates these things so much as cultural and social swings that rise to a point and then eventually recede?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Yes we have sunk into tyranny in the past as well.

However at no time in our history has the state had as much power over individual citizens on such a scale as it does today, and they are just getting started with their 24/7 total surveillence state.

By the way, the lynching statistics indicate that documented events numbered on average 55 per year (1882 - 1968) and that the largest 'mass lynching' was the murder of 11 Italian immigrants in New Orleans in 1892. The state is executing 400 people per year these days. But that is not lynching so it doesn't count. Our prisons are stuffed with people, mostly black men, mostly for economic crimes, at an incarceration rate unparalleled in our history, but never mind that either.

"I. Introduction
The Justice Department recently released data showing that the number of prisoners in America rose to 1.8 million last year, the highest level ever, and the second largest prison population in the world. Using the most recent Justice Department data, the Justice Policy Institute found that last year two-thirds of those 1.8 million were incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, representing the first time in American history that more than one million (1,185,458) people were confined for crimes involving no violence."

http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/one_million/onemillionexec.html

[jpgray]

46. My point is that such tyranny isn't always indicative of an inevitable slide into worse times

I don't at all dispute the total injustice of our hideous prison system and the barbaric death penalty. All I'm saying is that this is less about invasion of privacy and civil liberties than a guy who behaved like a shoplifter and was asked for ID by a suspicious cop who overstepped his bounds. If we were really in "police state" mode, the guy wouldn't have any opportunity to blog about his experience. You can argue that such searches are wrong, but I don't agree that -this one- is necessarily indicative of the broader problems we have right now with state surveillance and invasive law enforcement.

[Hydra]

62. Wow

All I'm saying is that this is less about invasion of privacy and civil liberties than a guy who behaved like a shoplifter and was asked for ID by a suspicious cop who overstepped his bounds.

Congratulations. The guy did something you didn't approve of, so you say he acted like a shoplifter so that the person who had no right to search him had a better excuse.

This is EXACTLY why stepping out of rule of law is so dangerous. You apparently need a good dose of it yourself to stay in the lines.

*shakes head* I lose faith in humanity more every day.

[jpgray]

64. A person avoids receipt check and tries to leave

What do you think the likely assumption is to a manager or a cop who deals with store theft all the time? Doesn't mean the assumption is right, but it's certainly understandable. Nine times out of ten, they'd be right about it being a shoplifter's behavior. It doesn't make the cop's action -right-, but it makes it understandable.

[Hydra]

70. Nice try to cover

You seem not to be getting that there was no requirement to "comply" and that the Manager followed him out and physically prevented him from leaving. The officer then dragged him off to jail for calling him up.

Thanks for the education- I didn't know people so little valued their right not to be searched.

[jpgray]

74. What cover? He behaved like a shoplifter and got treated like one

That isn't right, and the right to avoid unreasonable search should be inviolable, but doesn't it at least provide some perspective on the behavior of the manager and cop? They're not used to dealing with noble objectors to receipt checks--they -are- used to dealing with shoplifters. Is it any wonder they wouldn't correctly identify this guy as the former when they've likely never seen it before? Again, that doesn't make it right.

[Hydra]

80. Then what was the point of your post?

"It's not right, but do it anyway because these people are used to getting their way"?

I hope you understand how much more this means than a receipt. Laws grow out of what becomes "acceptable" and what becomes "acceptable" is sold to us by the corps.

That logical path takes us to all sorts of dark places. Not that we aren't in one right now, but your can always dig deeper once you hit bottom.

[jpgray]

81. That this is not necessarily indicative of a preciptious decline into a police state

There are indicators of state abuse of law enforcement and invasion of personal liberties, but I think this sort of thing could have happened at -any- point in this country's history. Unreasonable searches of this type (suspicion of crime) are not at all exclusive or unique to the times we live in today, and they are not evidence of a slippery slope because if they were all of society would be a police state.

[Hydra]

86. I don't have to argue that point to you

Military Commissions Act of 2006- Anyone, anywhere may be charged with being an "unlawful enemy combatant" at the word of the President, and may not challenge the charge.

That is just one law. I can't be bothered to show you the 1000's of other examples.

The Circuit City issue is simply a symptom of the issue- a Corp's representitives assume powers that they don't possess, and are backed up by a LEO when the issue is reported.

How much longer before security guards at the door with dogs and guns? Barbed wire fence? Corp mercenary forces as "loss prevention"?

Corps are declaring themselves "The Law" by virtue of "ownership." That scare you? It should.

[Pithlet]

76. It's not behaving like a shoplifter to know your rights and exercise them.

The fact that the store policy exists isn't indicative broader problems. The fact they tried to detain someone and people are actually defending that, is. I have to admit the fact that people seem to have no problem with this is actually scaring me. I'm not sure I will let them check my receipt next time. You know, I have let them check my bag and receipt, but maybe I've been wrong. Maybe I'm contributing to this mindset that thinks it's perfectly okay for a store to enforce their policy as if it had the weight of the law behind it. That it's okay for a store to have the authority to hold us against our will even though we've done nothing wrong. It scares me that's okay for some.

[Hydra]

42. The police may not be obligated to look the other way,

but they certainly have no problem doing so if the victim doesn't fit their "acceptable" parameters.

Think no mass lynchings? How would you characterize it when a person's house is burned down, when the people are inside? Is it a lesser crime if they happen to get out somehow?

And when the police say, "Gee, we think it was an accident...probably a wiring fault"

The focus has shifted somewhat- being a minority helps, but if you're poor, you're just as tasty a prey.

How does that fit in with the slippery slope? Are we going in a good direction one way and a bad direction in the other? Or might there be no grand schematic pattern that dictates these things so much as cultural and social swings that rise to a point and then eventually recede?

I think I understand where you're coming from...but you're dead wrong. You think this is being affected by us.

This is the whole point- we don't get a say. They do, and we get arrested if we don't "comply"

Today it's a receipt. Tomorrow, it's some cop that pulls your wife over and demands a blowjob, or he takes her off to jail.

If you're ok with that, by all means help the cop get that blowjob.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. In the 60's and 70's

we, black and white and hispanic, openly and brazenly defied authority and refused to cooperate.

Calling a Irish/Jew mongrel a WASP is a fucking hideous insult, pal.

[jpgray]

28. I don't know anyone's ethnicity here, but calling -this- a police state in comparison to the past?

That's just goofy. And calling someone a WASP is an insult? Do you have some hatred towards that group? I presumed anyone who finds -this- to be an example of a dangerous police state must have a rather myopic view of history.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Oh contraire

those of us who remember the lessons of history, American and otherwise, realize that we are moving in that direction. Trust me, as a daughter of a holocaust surivor I have talked to many folks who grew up in that world that disapeared during WW II. And many of them have made the comment of how much they are reminded of the slow steps taken by the Germans on the way to THAT nightmare

The technology makes it easier today... and in some ways the same ol' suspects are involved.

IT CAN and indeed IT IS happening here.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. spare me your nonsense.

"Or are you talking about the indignities suffered by the WASP population? "

that was intended to be insulting and you know it.

The term WASP is first of all an insult. Using it generically to mean 'white people' is further insulting to those of us who are very much outside the ethnic boundaries of the white establishment.

And yes there simply is no time in the past when the police at all levels had the capacity to spy on and control citizens that they do today.

There were three episodes in the past that draw a parallel to today's police state.
1) Lincoln suspends habeus corpus during the civil war.
2) The Plamer Raids after WWI.
3) FDR's mass internment of Japanese Americans.

Only Lincoln's actions come close to where we have arrived. The Palmer Raids and the Japanese internments were isolated episodes. We have established a permanent surveillence state, and there seems to be no undoing it.

[jpgray]

56. WASP is not an insult. It's an acronym. Second, I didn't call -you- a WASP

I'm simply pointing out that the only measure by which we are worse off than before as far as civil liberty tramplings is if you are measuring the woes of white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Some Catholics (hello Irish and Italians!) may be white, but they suffered systematic police abuse and discrimination. Any interpretation of WASP to generically mean "white people" must needs ignore three out of four letters in the acronym, and so that problem resides with you, not me.

That you leave out segregation, Jim Crow and poll taxes is indicative of the myopia I accused you of earlier. If you don't see that as a severe level of police-state control and oppression over a segment of the population, I suppose I can't convince you. If you think this case of a suspicious and frustrated cop overstepping his bounds is equal to or a sign of the same exact sort of invasive oppression, well then I don't know -what- to say to that.

[terrya]

5. Just show the damn receipt.

You're on THEIR property. If they ask you to show your receipt, do it. It's not some damn "OMG, they're taking away all of my civil liberties" thing. It's not the advent of a police state.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. They can ask, its their right

and it is my right to say no

That is why it is a VOLUNTARY SEARCH.

[Tesha]

19. You're missing the point.

The problem isn't the receipt, shown or not.

The problem was the illegal arrest for *NO CRIME
COMMITTED WHATSOEVER*.

Tesha

[Cathyclysmic]

31. First, they came to see my receipt, and I said nothing.

Then, they asked to look in my bag, and I said nothing.

Then, as I was browsing the new arrivals in the DVD section, an associate started organizing things as a front to checking to see if I was shoplifting, and I said nothing.

Then they started putting those annoying fucking security tags on everything that they always forget to disarm, causing me to set off the security screen at the front of the store, then I had to go back to show the sales associate my receipt proving I bought something, and my kid is screaming that he wants an Icee, and it's raining now and the parking lot's a wet mess, and they forgot to scan the 10% off coupon...

[jpgray]

34. Hahahaha! I was waiting for Niemoller to appear in this thread

[EstimatedProphet]

71. LOL!

[BOSSHOG]

6. Another example

AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THIS PRACTICE:

checking ID when someone writes a check in a retail outlet. I know checks aren't written that much anymore, but the shopper could be writing a check on my account having stolen my checkbook earlier in the day.

If a plumber came to your home to fix your toilet then helped himself to your wallet or purse while you weren't looking and smuggled it out to his truck, would that be okay with you?

[Buzz Clik]

7. there's a much more important lesson: "The Hide Thread button is your friend."

[jpgray]

8. I'm one of those self-important "take the good with the bad" people

:P

Which can be kind of stupid if you think about it.

[Buzz Clik]

13. I can take the good with the bad, but only in small doses.

After two full days of this, it's time to Hide.

[treestar]

14. The lesson is that you're volunteering to do it

And can't be arrested for refusing to do it.

No one is saying you have to resist it. This rich guy did you a favor by pointing this out to you. Doubtless, you do whatever is asked. But be ready to refuse in the right circumstances. This kind of thing conditions you. Someone in a uniform comes up and makes a demand of you. Do you at least think about it? Or just obey automatically.

We are where we are now because we pick our battles and avoid the trouble. The farther it goes, the less willing we are to pick the battle and incur the trouble, now worse.

[jpgray]

20. I would support someone who refused to succumb to an invasive airport search

But this guy?

[IndianaJones]

15. If you buy the 10 year protection plan, they'll let you steal whatever you want. nt.

[sandnsea]

21. I'm offended at Costco

I don't like the idea of living in a state of constant suspicion. I think it somehow psychologically contributes to a dehumanizing atmosphere which actually makes it easier for people to be crooks. None of it has stopped crime. I would bet there are more bad checks AFTER the computerized check systems than there were before because I think it's easier to figure out how to circumvent a system than a well trained human.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. There is a difference

At COSTCO you agreed to it. Read the contract, it is in the fine print

They also explained the reason at one point.

It is two fold

To make sure you got what you paid for... Yes, they have a couple times found bagging mistakes that way

Less, to prevent loss. Their teams are all over the store. Though trying to hide an industrial sized bathroom tissue seems a tad hard.

At CC or any other open store, read non-membership, you did not sign for it, and can choose to submit to it, or not. Their recourse if you don't is to refuse future service

At least locally they'd loose customers. I have seen more people in the recent past refuse to submit, and it is not only me

[sandnsea]

33. I don't think it works is my point

In addition to the fact that I don't even like it at Costco where I know they do it as policy, let alone other locations where it is random and more insulting.

That said, the guy opened his car door to allow the manager to come over to his car, then pushed the manager out of the way, so he could have just left too. He called the police so he voluntarily created the detention.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. The fact is that at COSTCO you agreed to it, when you signed

your contract.

IT IS stated in a contract

You can choose not to shop there

But you AGREED to submit yourself to a voluntary search

At places like (insert open store here) you have not

There you have a right to say no

As to the guy escalating, yes... perhaps, but still the point is, he had a right to say no and the moment he said no, the store employee should have dropped it

Hell's bells we have had a couple times when store employees challenge my saying no.

Once in Hawaii... they even went to far as to threaten taking our tags and calling the cops... they can do that, and the cops will laugh all the way to the call.. hell we even offered to wait for the cops along side the employee, having a record of a police response can be useful if you catch my drift... the manager had the god given sense to drop it. He realized we knew our rights.

Another time, at the local fryes, the new employee got rude...

Now if in either of those we had been detained... we would have talked to lawyers.

It comes down to they can ask

And I can volunteer the receipt or not.

COSTCO, I gave that right up for lower prices

Now as to how it works, or not... it is a deterrent, perhaps, but not a good one

[sandnsea]

52. In response to the OP

who apparently doesn't mind being a criminal suspect -

I said I don't even like it at a place like Costco -

even though I agreed to it when I went into the store.

Get it?

I KNOW it's a choice, it's still a choice I don't like making.

Jeeminy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Jeesh, aparently engaingin in conversation is

not something you truly apreciate

WOW

[sandnsea]

58. Telling me I'm saying something I'm not

isn't conversation.

[dogday]

85. I don't have a Costco Membership, but I get my medication

there.. I tell them upon entry I am going to the pharmacy.. I walk out the door with my package in hand and nobody has ever stopped me to inspect, to see my receipt..

I guess Membership sometimes doesn't have it's privalages...

[Truth2Tell]

23. 800 posts in another thread

wasn't enough on this? :shrug:

[Pithlet]

24. It's not the fact that Circuit City asks to check bags and receipts that is outrageous.

It's the fact that people think they have a right to detain people for not complying with the request that gets me. Yes, it is very important that no one can hold you against your will without probable cause. That's not a right we can let anyone chip away at. The fact that this was a Circuit City and the brouhaha is over a receipt is what is distracting people and making them think this is a non-issue. But, strip all that away and look at what is at the heart of the issue. The right to not be held against your will without probable cause is not a petty, insignificant issue. Yes, the fact that someone decided to pick a fight and got into trouble is in the grand scheme of things not earth shattering. But the fact that people who are defending him (assuming he's telling the truth about everything that happened) are being told here on DU that it's no big deal and they're making a huge issue out of nothing is actually kind of disturbing to me, I'll admit. Since when did keeping corporations in check and not giving them too much power become a wacko overreaction on DU? The the fact that this blew up on DU at all is surprising to me. I think that pointing out that store policy isn't the law and doesn't override our basic rights is an important one, and I don't get why that's so crazy.

[jpgray]

I don't think it's no big deal, but I think it's simpler than a grand erosion of our rights

I think it's a cop who saw behavior he viewed as suspicious and overstepped his bounds, based on what the blogger said.

[Pithlet]

44. I think that's probably what happened, too.

I'm just trying to explain to those who think it isn't a big deal why it actually is important. They aren't supposed to treat store policy as if it were the law, and for good reason. They aren't allowed to treat a customer who fails to comply like they're a criminal, because they aren't, and that's an important distinction. They're within their rights to kick a patron out of the store, and to ban them from returning, but that's about it. It doesn't matter if the policy is a small one, and of no major inconvenience.

[Left Is Write]

55. ...

:thumbsup:

[Gormy Cuss]

25. While I do not think that we are even close to a police state, I do agree with WarrenStupiditiy

that people accept a hundred little invasions of privacy now that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. It troubles me that it's a social conditioning to lower the expectation of the right to be let alone, as Justice Brandeis phrased it. We have stopped questioning it when private companies do it, and if we have a government try to impose similar restrictions we may be less inclined to see the problem with that too. That's where the comparison to Rosa Parks and "papers, please" moments come into consideration -- not that this itty bitty anecdote on a blog is a civil rights violation, but the projection that accepting such minor intrusions sets the stage for accepting later, larger ones by government.

The fact is the receipt check is voluntary and by most accounts from the industry it's NOT about catching customers shoplifting but about catching cashier error and fraud. The guy who said no may be an asshole but he wasn't an asshole simply for declining, and it's somewhat frightening to me how quickly so many people dismissed the whole event because they said essentially that it was his own fault for not going along with the store's request.

[jpgray]

36. But we had internment camps, segregation and far more egregious violations in the past

How is this worse?

[Gormy Cuss]

57. It's not worse. It's more like risking a renewed acceptance of those sorts of violations.

Look at some of the reactions to the level of illegal immigration. There are people clamoring to change the law of automatic citizenship by birth because they're distracted by the "anchor baby" issue. Some are in essence calling for a large and permanent second class residents by letting foreign workers come here on long term permits with no hope of achieving permanent residency. There are also those who believe that airport screening should pretty much be limited to those who "look" muslim.

In a separate vein, the "I've got nothing to hide" attitude is troublesome because it assumes that there is an obligation to go along with any such request as proof that you're honest or a good citizen. Again, Brandeis and the concept of the right to be let alone. People who are living honest lives aren't required to disprove a presumption of guilt -- rather, the underlying principle is that the state has to disprove the presumption of innocence. Internment camps were a classic example of people going along with the upside down version -- Japanese-Americans who weren't doing anything wrong should have been glad to help the country by living in a remote camp where they couldn't blow up the west coast, right?

[Pithlet]

89. Exactly right. These may be differences in degree, but they aren't differences in kind.

The principles behind the argument that Circuit City was in the wrong if they are guilty of attempting to hold anyone are solid. Never mind that it's also actually the law. I'm dismayed at how many people think those of us making that argument are making a big deal out of nothing.

[ewoden]

26. Yes

And Eric Theodore Cartman stated it most succinctly:

http://www.postershop.com/south-park/south-park-you-will-respect-my-authority-3700212.html

[qanda]

29. I think taking the time to explain your position is the key

I didn't comment on the original thread about this but I think what bothered me about it is that the person just kept going without saying anything. With every right comes a responsibility. The responsibility in this case would have been to calmly explain what the law has to say about them not having their bag checked. Then if the incident still escalated to the point it did, there would be much more sympathy for the person's cause. As it stands, it seems the person was just looking for a fight and that's what they got.

[johnnie]

35. The dude called the cops

The cop went there to investigate the problem and then the guy who called for the investigation refused to go along with the investigation. It's not like the cop just decided to drive up to Circuit City and ask someone for an ID. And the truth is, you can be arrested for obstructing an investigation. It happens all the time.

[asthmaticeog]

41. All I know is, I'm totally gonna go buy something at that CC.

Even if it's just some 9-volt batteries or something. :patirot:

[johnnie]

47. What I have been thinking about is..

After the cop showed up that left what...maybe 2 more cops on the beat?..lol. Brooklyn is pretty small.

[asthmaticeog]

38. Though it's been a looong time since the cluetrain derailed in GD,

I think this could finally be DU's real jump-the-shark moment. That this forum would rise up en masse to defend the petulant, privileged whiteboy "I can do whatever I want" hissyfit of a toxically self-involved libertarian doucherocket is several leagues beyond senseless.

[MUSTANG_2004]

60. Why bring race into it?

Would you feel differently if he were black and behaved exactly the same?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chovexani]

66. A thousand jump the shark moments

This one's particularly hilarious, though.

(So's "doucherocket", which I am so totally stealing. :rofl:)

[asthmaticeog]

68. It's all yours.

:hi:

[JVS]

67. "Though it's been a looong time since the cluetrain derailed in GD"

You're being sarcastic right? Shit. I didn't even know that there were tracks in GD.

[asthmaticeog]

73. Nature reclaimed them in late 2003.

You can almost kind of see them if you clear enough over-growth, but the immense effort's not really worth it.

[Pithlet]

69. But they aren't defending him.

They're defending a right. A right reserved for everyone. Have you been reading any of the arguments at all? I don't see how, for instance, my argument that store policies aren't writ of law is all that shark jumping ridiculous. Or the fact that people can't treat you like a criminal and hold you against your will unless you've given probable cause is crazy making insanity rather than an actual honest to God principle. I'm sorry. I don't get it.

[asthmaticeog]

77. You don't get private property and tacit acceptance?

They have the right to determine whether goods that leave their property was legitimately paid-for. Setting foot in their store equals tacit acceptance of that right. No, store policies aren't a writ of law. Neither is my rule against smoking in the car, but I have the right to eject someone who does it.

[Pithlet]

84. They have a right to implement a policy where they ask to see bags/receipts.

They don't have the right to enforce compliance beyond refusing to do business with anyone that doesn't want to comply. I'm not making this up. This is actually the law. It's been pointed out with links several times in this flame war. They have the right to stop you if there is evidence you've stolen something. Refusing to comply with a request you're not legally obligated to comply with isn't legal evidence of wrong doing.

No, when I set foot in that store, I do not give up my right to not be held against my will with no evidence I've even committed a crime. You don't either. They don't have the right to do that to us. Yes, they have a right to ask to see your receipt and your bag. They do it because they know most people don't even think twice about it. And that is all well and good. But, the fact is that the people who are doing it don't legally have to. They're willingly complying with a store policy, but they aren't breaking a law if they refuse. There is no law on the books that state you have to show your bag and receipt to the store if they ask you to. There isn't. They can post the policy, and they can refuse to serve anyone who doesn't comply. They can't treat them like a criminal if they don't.

[jayfish]

72. It's Disgusting.

to read all the DU'ers who would grovel at the feet of their corporate masters and beg them to "please let me leave your den of consumerism", where the paying customers are automatically suspected to be thieves.

Jay

[asthmaticeog]

78. Yeah, OK. 'Cuz that's what's at issue here.

:eyes:

[jayfish]

82. It's Not? Are The People On This Board...

slowly turning into a bunch of feking morans?

-The guy didn't show his receipt.
-The store detained him.
-He therefore had to beg the police to come rescue him.
-If he didn't have a Circuit City bag none of this wouldn't have happened.

Jay


Edited for content

[asthmaticeog]

92. Not slowly, and not in present tense.

[The Stranger]

43. Aw, Jeez, Not This Shit Again.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

50. Common Sense

...finally.

I thought I was the lone voice out here thinking what you put down here so eloquently.

If I were operating a business that was losing millions a year due to shoplifting - I think I would be inclined to protect myself. Even if it meant placing some bag checkers at the exit.

Also - keeping shoplifting down to a squeak rather than ramped up to a screaming roar has to be good for the consumer - It has to keep prices within a reasonable level.

[Pithlet]

65. But no one is arguing that you couldn't.

No one is arguing that anti-theft policies are an infringement on people's rights. They're just telling you you can't trample on the rights of other people in the process of implementing them. I don't think you'd argue that stores should be able to do whatever they want in order to ensure people aren't stealing, and that there are no laws that restrict what they can do, would you? Then I don't see how it's so outrageous that people are arguing that treating a person who hasn't committed a crime or given probable cause to to suspect they have as a criminal and holding them against their will is going too far.

[Richardo]

59. I think I'll happily recommend this post

Well said, sir :patriot:

[huskerlaw]

79. Completely agreed

and recommended.

[superkia]

83. My problem with it is when my white ass walks by unnoticed

most of the time and many of the people that don't look like me get stopped. I have only been checked when I had a large item like my computers that were no in a bag and I was just carrying out. I usually walk up with my receipt to them and they just wave me by? I think if they are going to do it, they should do it for all every time.

[KaptBunnyPants]

87. "It's like fucking Auschwitz in here"

I actually heard some dumbass saying that upon having his receipt checked as he left Fries Electronics. It still makes me laugh years later. But then Fries didn't involve some disgusting cop. Those assholes not only believe that they know everything about physics - "I know you're lying to me because what you're saying isn't physically possible, boy", but they also believe themselves to be master psychologists and psychic to boot. That's what happens when you give a pea-brain dropout with aggression problems a gun; they act like they're some kind of master of the universe.

[mzmolly]

88. All I know is that I'm glad I missed it.

:hi:

[RufusTFirefly]

90. Milgram's 37

we do what we're told
we do what we're told
we do what we're told
told to do

we do what we're told
we do what we're told
we do what we're told
told to do

one doubt
one voice
one war
one truth
one dream

-- Peter Gabriel

The rules of a corporation are beginning to blur with the rules of the state, turning corporations into a de facto arm of the state.

I find that troubling.

[jpgray]

91. True, but is this particular scenario a perfect example of that?

I see it more as an example of suspicion of criminal behavior overriding respect for our right against unreasonable search (on the part of the cop), which I imagine has happened since the Bill of Rights was written.