Arrested For Not Showing License

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]rainjack wrote:

You are making the same assumption that pookie is making.

Sore owners can detain - not arrest, DETAIN - if they have reasonable suspicion.

Walking out of the store with merchandise in a bag and a refusal to show the security guy a receipt should be construed as reasonable suspicion by anyone that has ever owned a business, or been responsible for the inventory control in a business.

[/quote]

I do not know if you read my posts to Zap so I´ll sum it up.

There is such a thing as freedom of movement. As a free men you can go wherever you please, unless of course you violate the rights of others.

If you commit a crime a citizen can arrest you under very well defined circumstances:

If those criteria are not met the ARRESTING citizen commits a crime, “false imprisonment”.

“False imprisonment is a tort, and possibly a crime, wherein a person is intentionally confined without legal authority.”

Shopowners have some leeway according to this rule but they still must have probable cause. A definition of probable cause can be found here:

March 1991, Ohio’s Shoplifting Laws by Ohio Council of Retail Merchants

http://www.omeda.org/fastfacts/1800.htm

The two key elements, namely:

  1. The taking and the carrying away of the goods, and
  2. Intent to deprive permanently the owner of those goods.

are missing.

Nobody has seen the person hide anything in the first place and since this guy actually paid the intent is missing two.

So if you think that the failure to produce a receipt alone constitutes reasonable doubt you are wrong.

I also disagree that it should, because it goes too far in the innocent until proven guilty category and I also cannot subscribe to the legal theory that I lose my rights once I enter someone elses property.

That does not change the fact that this guy behaved liked an idiot in my opinion, but where you see one idiot I see three.

It is just that one idiot only harmed himself whereas two idiots abused their authority, and I think it is reasonable to expect from a cop to know the law regarding shoplifting and to not make up some BS charge to get even emotionally.

222

Here s the flaw in your logic: You think that the store owner has to prove/know that the customer/thief is stealing before he can be detained.

The store owner does not have that burden of proof.

All he has to do is have reasonable suspicion that someone is attempting to leave the store with merchandise not paid for. Leaving the store and refusing to show a receipt - when asked - is reasonable suspicion. In the case of Ohio Law - it seems that they only use the term Probable Cause.
From your Ohio Law link:

The use of all the powers given by Section 2935.041 to the merchant, his employees or his agent obviously should be exercised with care and caution. The conditions imposed upon such powers should be strictly complied with; misuse can lead to public ridicule, lawsuits and loss of “good will.” On the other hand, the merchant need not stand idly by and observe his merchandise going out the front door. A great many of the discussions concerning false arrest are sometimes over-drawn and overplayed.

I would argue that the store owner was well with in his rights to do what he did, and that a court should be the arbiter here.

I would draw your attention to the last sentence in the quote - which seems to apply quite well to this thread.

223

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Here s the flaw in your logic: You think that the store owner has to prove/know that the customer/thief is stealing before he can be detained.

The store owner does not have that burden of proof.

[/quote]

Sure he has.

He has to be able to prove probable cause. That is not stealing, only the likelyhood of a theft. That is all the law requires.

A video where it looks like that the customer puts something in his pocket. A store detective that witnesses the same.

He might have that burden of proof after the facts, but he has it nonetheless, with real legal consequences.

The rules for citizens arrest are very strict for a purpose, so that no wannabe-vigilantes arrest people on a hunch. A store keeper is allready privileged but not as much as you want him to be.

If you detain someone you start with false imprisonment and after a “reasonable amount of time” has passed you are officialy a kidnapper, if you have no legal grounds to do so.

“Detaining” someone is not the legal non-issue you would like it to be.

I have shown why I think there was no probable cause.

Show me why a shopkeeper can detain people on a gut feeling. It would be interestin to know how they aquired more rights than the police.

224

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here s the flaw in your logic: You think that the store owner has to prove/know that the customer/thief is stealing before he can be detained.

The store owner does not have that burden of proof.

Sure he has.

He has to be able to prove probable cause. That is not stealing, only the likelyhood of a theft. That is all the law requires.

A video where it looks like that the customer puts something in his pocket. A store detective that witnesses the same.

He might have that burden of proof after the facts, but he has it nonetheless, with real legal consequences.

The rules for citizens arrest are very strict for a purpose, so that no wannabe-vigilantes arrest people on a hunch. A store keeper is allready privileged but not as much as you want him to be.

If you detain someone you start with false imprisonment and after a “reasonable amount of time” has passed you are officialy a kidnapper, if you have no legal grounds to do so.

“Detaining” someone is not the legal non-issue you would like it to be.

I have shown why I think there was no probable cause.

Show me why a shopkeeper can detain people on a gut feeling. It would be interestin to know how they aquired more rights than the police.

[/quote]

That is all that is required for the cop to search, or arrest the guy.

I think I have shown why there is probable cause, 0r at the very least reasonable suspicion. If the guy is not arrested, then he’s not arrested.

Who said anything about a gut feeling? No one ever said anything about detaining someone on a gut feeling. Given the actions, and attitude of the dipshit in question - any rational thinking shop owner would be inclined to believe the guy is leaving the store with items he did not pay for.

I would take my chances in court after the fact, and most likely any suit brought against me by the dipshit would be dismissed. But my concern would be to make sure he didn’t have any of my merchandise in his bag that was not paid for.

You want to try the case right there in the store, and as a store owner, that is the least of my worries - as it should be. That is a job for LE.

225

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You want to try the case right there in the store, and as a store owner, that is the least of my worries - as it should be. [/quote]

Until you find a customer that doesn’t take shit and breaks your nose resisting your false imprisonment…

226

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here s the flaw in your logic: You think that the store owner has to prove/know that the customer/thief is stealing before he can be detained.

The store owner does not have that burden of proof.

Sure he has.

He has to be able to prove probable cause. That is not stealing, only the likelyhood of a theft. That is all the law requires.

A video where it looks like that the customer puts something in his pocket. A store detective that witnesses the same.

He might have that burden of proof after the facts, but he has it nonetheless, with real legal consequences.

The rules for citizens arrest are very strict for a purpose, so that no wannabe-vigilantes arrest people on a hunch. A store keeper is allready privileged but not as much as you want him to be.

If you detain someone you start with false imprisonment and after a “reasonable amount of time” has passed you are officialy a kidnapper, if you have no legal grounds to do so.

“Detaining” someone is not the legal non-issue you would like it to be.

I have shown why I think there was no probable cause.

Show me why a shopkeeper can detain people on a gut feeling. It would be interestin to know how they aquired more rights than the police.

That is all that is required for the cop to search, or arrest the guy.

I think I have shown why there is probable cause, 0r at the very least reasonable suspicion. If the guy is not arrested, then he’s not arrested.

Who said anything about a gut feeling? No one ever said anything about detaining someone on a gut feeling. Given the actions, and attitude of the dipshit in question - any rational thinking shop owner would be inclined to believe the guy is leaving the store with items he did not pay for.

I would take my chances in court after the fact, and most likely any suit brought against me by the dipshit would be dismissed. But my concern would be to make sure he didn’t have any of my merchandise in his bag that was not paid for.

You want to try the case right there in the store, and as a store owner, that is the least of my worries - as it should be. That is a job for LE.

[/quote]

I have to agree with Lixy.

If you “detain” me against my will, I will hurt you.

Badly.

And I would be protecting my rights.

It actually works both ways. If the storekeeper can take his chances so can I.

As I explained to Zap, in Austria I could legally kill you for the attempt to restrict my movement.

(If it was the least intrusive method to definitely make sure you stop. But you`re a big guy.)

I guess in the US I could still seriously hurt you and if you defend yourself AND hurt me, you are indeed taking your chances in court.

227

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Who said anything about a gut feeling? No one ever said anything about detaining someone on a gut feeling. Given the actions, and attitude of the dipshit in question - any rational thinking shop owner would be inclined to believe the guy is leaving the store with items he did not pay for.

[/quote]

You do not seriously believe that common sense and legal definitions are one and the same?

228

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You want to try the case right there in the store, and as a store owner, that is the least of my worries - as it should be.

Until you find a customer that doesn’t take shit and breaks your nose resisting your false imprisonment…[/quote]

And add assault to attempted shoplifting charges? I could only be so lucky.

Go back to making bombs.

229

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You want to try the case right there in the store, and as a store owner, that is the least of my worries - as it should be.

Until you find a customer that doesn’t take shit and breaks your nose resisting your false imprisonment…[/quote]

You are such a tough guy.

230

Who said they were?

Like I said - I’ll take my chances in the Ohio courts. As a property owner - I broke no laws. The only thing that can happen is a civil suit brought on by the dipshit.

You think a gut feeling is the same as common sense?

231

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here s the flaw in your logic: You think that the store owner has to prove/know that the customer/thief is stealing before he can be detained.

The store owner does not have that burden of proof.

Sure he has.

He has to be able to prove probable cause. That is not stealing, only the likelyhood of a theft. That is all the law requires.

A video where it looks like that the customer puts something in his pocket. A store detective that witnesses the same.

He might have that burden of proof after the facts, but he has it nonetheless, with real legal consequences.

The rules for citizens arrest are very strict for a purpose, so that no wannabe-vigilantes arrest people on a hunch. A store keeper is allready privileged but not as much as you want him to be.

If you detain someone you start with false imprisonment and after a “reasonable amount of time” has passed you are officialy a kidnapper, if you have no legal grounds to do so.

“Detaining” someone is not the legal non-issue you would like it to be.

I have shown why I think there was no probable cause.

Show me why a shopkeeper can detain people on a gut feeling. It would be interestin to know how they aquired more rights than the police.

That is all that is required for the cop to search, or arrest the guy.

I think I have shown why there is probable cause, 0r at the very least reasonable suspicion. If the guy is not arrested, then he’s not arrested.

Who said anything about a gut feeling? No one ever said anything about detaining someone on a gut feeling. Given the actions, and attitude of the dipshit in question - any rational thinking shop owner would be inclined to believe the guy is leaving the store with items he did not pay for.

I would take my chances in court after the fact, and most likely any suit brought against me by the dipshit would be dismissed. But my concern would be to make sure he didn’t have any of my merchandise in his bag that was not paid for.

You want to try the case right there in the store, and as a store owner, that is the least of my worries - as it should be. That is a job for LE.

I have to agree with Lixy.

If you “detain” me against my will, I will hurt you.

Badly.

And I would be protecting my rights.

It actually works both ways. If the storekeeper can take his chances so can I.

As I explained to Zap, in Austria I could legally kill you for the attempt to restrict my movement.

(If it was the least intrusive method to definitely make sure you stop. But you`re a big guy.)

I guess in the US I could still seriously hurt you and if you defend yourself AND hurt me, you are indeed taking your chances in court.[/quote]

So a shoplifter is allowed to kill a shopkeeper for trying to detain him?

What about parking lot attendants and others that try to restrict my movements? Can I kill them in Austria?

What kind of fucked up country do you live in?

No wonder Arnold got out as soon as he could.

232

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

So a shoplifter is allowed to kill a shopkeeper for trying to detain him?

What about parking lot attendants and others that try to restrict my movements? Can I kill them in Austria?

What kind of fucked up country do you live in?

No wonder Arnold got out as soon as he could.[/quote]

You are misinterpreting me on purpose, otherwise you´d have no point.

No, a perfectly innocent person does not have to suffer that a criminal restricts his movements even though he has no evidence whatsoever.

Get it?

233

[quote]orion wrote:
I have to agree with Lixy.[/quote]

Already conceding? You barely started.

[quote]If you “detain” me against my will, I will hurt you.

Badly.

And I would be protecting my rights.

It actually works both ways. If the storekeeper can take his chances so can I.

As I explained to Zap, in Austria I could legally kill you for the attempt to restrict my movement.[/quote]

And you would be jailed for assault in Texas.

That would depend on who swung first.

This could go on for days. What is it now? 6-7 pages of the same dick measuring bullshit?

I am on the side of the property owner. You and several others think that the dipshit is right in his actions.

Answer me this honestly (off topic slightly) - would you refuse to show a security guy your receipt if he asked you? Additionally - is this the place to draw the line and make a statement?

234

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

So a shoplifter is allowed to kill a shopkeeper for trying to detain him?

What about parking lot attendants and others that try to restrict my movements? Can I kill them in Austria?

What kind of fucked up country do you live in?

No wonder Arnold got out as soon as he could.

You are misinterpreting me on purpose, otherwise you´d have no point.

No, a perfectly innocent person does not have to suffer that a criminal restricts his movements even though he has no evidence whatsoever.

Get it?

[/quote]

So guilt has to be established first? Since it is up to a court of law to establish guilt and not a shopkeeper you are making no sense whatsoever.

235

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Answer me this honestly (off topic slightly) - would you refuse to show a security guy your receipt if he asked you? Additionally - is this the place to draw the line and make a statement?

[/quote]

Na, I´d show him his fucking receipt. I was not asked to produce one in the last 20 years and that Lady had the pleasure to go through my sweaty gym bag.

And no, this is hardly the place to draw the line. Store clerks will probably not establish a dictatorship to serve our reptilian overlords.

I have a big place in my heart though for everyone showing the finger to “authority”.

And, had this been an Austrian cop, I would be more than happy to show him the limits of his authority.

236

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

So a shoplifter is allowed to kill a shopkeeper for trying to detain him?

What about parking lot attendants and others that try to restrict my movements? Can I kill them in Austria?

What kind of fucked up country do you live in?

No wonder Arnold got out as soon as he could.

You are misinterpreting me on purpose, otherwise you´d have no point.

No, a perfectly innocent person does not have to suffer that a criminal restricts his movements even though he has no evidence whatsoever.

Get it?

So guilt has to be established first? Since it is up to a court of law to establish guilt and not a shopkeeper you are making no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

You are again misinterpreting me on purpose.

You should at least think you have probable cause.

You should think HARD.

Detaining something is a serious matter.

If you do so with no legal authority, any citizen can protect himself.

I´ve cited the laws. You do not like them?

Change them.

237

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

So a shoplifter is allowed to kill a shopkeeper for trying to detain him?

What about parking lot attendants and others that try to restrict my movements? Can I kill them in Austria?

What kind of fucked up country do you live in?

No wonder Arnold got out as soon as he could.

You are misinterpreting me on purpose, otherwise you´d have no point.

No, a perfectly innocent person does not have to suffer that a criminal restricts his movements even though he has no evidence whatsoever.

Get it?

So guilt has to be established first? Since it is up to a court of law to establish guilt and not a shopkeeper you are making no sense whatsoever.

You are again misinterpreting me on purpose.

You should at least think you have probable cause.

You should think HARD.

Detaining something is a serious matter.

If you do so with no legal authority, any citizen can protect himself.

I´ve cited the laws. You do not like them?

Change them.

[/quote]

Leaving the store with merchandise and not displaying a receipt when asked IS PROBABLE CAUSE for the store employee to suspect something may be amiss.

You referenced a cite that RECOMMENDS a store have a bit more to go on but it admits that it is using a conservative interpretation.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

238

[quote]orion wrote:

I have a big place in my heart though for everyone showing the finger to “authority”.
[/quote]

And this is the very heart of the issue.

Maybe I am old enough to know there is a time and a place for showing the finger. This whole episode smells of internet tough-guyness.

I just have to wonder how much of a finger he was showing at authority.

239

From Zap and RJ’s posts, I think we’ve established that the law has been supplanted by the de facto standard receipt checking. So the guy might have acted like an asshole, but at least he drew attention to the sneaky erosion of privacy rights. In that sense, his courage should be saluted.

240

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:

I have a big place in my heart though for everyone showing the finger to “authority”.

And this is the very heart of the issue.

Maybe I am old enough to know there is a time and a place for showing the finger. This whole episode smells of internet tough-guyness.

I just have to wonder how much of a finger he was showing at authority.

[/quote]

I fought the law and the law won.

I fight authority, authority always wins.