[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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. [/quote]
Ha. The store needs probable cause to demand the receipt in the first place.
Whoever heard of considering a customer invoking his/her rights as probable cause? I mean, wouldn’t that strip us shoppers of all rights?
[quote]lixy wrote:
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.[/quote]
Please see my post in reference to internet tough-guyness. You fit the bill like cinderella and her slipper.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
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.
Ha. The store needs probable cause to demand the receipt in the first place.
Whoever heard of considering a customer invoking his/her rights as probable cause? I mean, wouldn’t that strip us shoppers of all rights?[/quote]
No rights were violated. None. Evidently you missed this part of the discussion while slobbering over the thought of a fellow keyboard warrior sticking it to the man.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
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.
Ha. The store needs probable cause to demand the receipt in the first place.
Whoever heard of considering a customer invoking his/her rights as probable cause? I mean, wouldn’t that strip us shoppers of all rights?[/quote]
You have no idea what you are talking about. The store can ask anything they want.
They can ask the customer to dance or stand on his head but if the customer refuses it has no bearing on anything.
When the customer leaves the store with merchandise that the shopkeeper believes was not paid for the shopkeeper then has probable cause to do something.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Ha. The store needs probable cause to demand the receipt in the first place. [/quote]
Lixy, for the love of all things sane - the store does not need a legal “probable cause” to demand seeing the receipt. Stores demand to see receipts all the time in blanket fashion - no rights are violated.
Stores that sell electronic goodies are target-rich environments for thieves - the store has a right to protect its property. That is the end of it.
If the whiney “victim” here thinks the store authorities overreacted and harmed him, he can sue in tort and ask a jury for some money. Now, fire up your fevered little brain and learn that no competent attorney would waste his time even bringing such a suit for the “victim”. This would be the textbook definition of a “frivolous lawsuit”.
My God - did this thread get an extra dose of stupid pills in addition to the usual prescription?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
My God - did this thread get an extra dose of stupid pills in addition to the usual prescription?[/quote]
Please tell me this is a rhetorical question.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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?[/quote]
Why has everyone ignored the fact that, in trying to defend his stance, rainjack posted a link that said the EXACT SAME THING!
[quote]tedro wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
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?
Why has everyone ignored the fact that, in trying to defend his stance, rainjack posted a link that said the EXACT SAME THING![/quote]
Because no one NOT arguing ever clicks the links.
Besides, arguments around here aren’t won based upon the facts. It’s all about being more funny or condescending than your opponent.
At least, more often than not, that’s what it seems like.
[Mod Note] - This post made me laugh out loud… thanks. Mod Lionel.
Myself, Lixy, orion, and ironicly even rainjack have shown that the store obviously has no grounds to detain a customer who refuses to show a receipt. I will try to convince the doubters one last time.
Can a store demand to see a receipt, pocket check, bag check as you walk into the store? Obviously not, they can refuse to let you in if you don’t oblige, but they have no right to search your property. As one leaves a store, their merchandise, including receipt is legally their property. So how can a store legally demand to see a receipt as you leave, given that it is your property? They can’t. Now, do you honestly beleive a merchant has probable cause to suspect shoplifting when one is merely enforcing their own rights? Lord, I hope not. Numerous links have been posted that support this, including the one rainjack posted.
With all of the insults some have thrown around, you all sure are making yourselves look foolish.
[quote]conner wrote:
Besides, arguments around here aren’t won based upon the facts. It’s all about being more funny or condescending than your opponent.
[Mod Note] - This post made me laugh out loud… thanks. Mod Lionel.[/quote]
And for those reasons alone - I am the undisputed heavy weight Champeen of the WORLD.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Why has everyone ignored the fact that, in trying to defend his stance, rainjack posted a link that said the EXACT SAME THING![/quote]
You see recommended, and you think that is the LAW.
I see recommended, and I know that there is miles and miles between that point and violating anyones rights.
You can use my name to try and make you in the right, but until you agree with me, you will eternally be wrong.
I know that is a hard pill to swallow for you, but the sooner you realize that simple fact, the sooner you will get your drivers license.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Anyway, your argument was legitimate. Unless someone in the store notices your bag getting bigger or heavier, there’s nothing they can do about it. That’s precisely the reason many stores have lockers at the entrance and would often force you to check-in your bag before letting you in. At that point, if you got a problem with their policy, you could walk away to a different store.[/quote]
So seizing a customer’s personal belongings is A-ok?
We heard stories of Europe’s TV Gestapo earlier, and we know that no matter how ridiculous America’s tax rate is, most of Europe’s will be significantly higher. We also know that most of Europe has already removed their citizens’ right to bear arms.
Amidst all that, some of you Euro’s are complaining that a store asking to see a receipt and then detaining a customer when they suspect shoplifting is a gross erosion of our civil rights.
Plank in your eye, sawdust in mine, blah, blah, blah.
While I think the Circuit City store manager needs a serious lesson in tact, the wanna-be rebel is the biggest asshole for ruining his little sister’s B-day just to make this stupid-ass “stand”.
This whole thread makes Baby Jesus cry.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
So seizing a customer’s personal belongings is A-ok? [/quote]
Not in the general sense, but as a condition of entry to the store, I see nothing wrong with it. At that point, you are free to take your money elsewhere.
Jefferson, Franklin and the gang aren’t exactly still in their graves either.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Can a store demand to see a receipt, pocket check, bag check as you walk into the store? Obviously not, they can refuse to let you in if you don’t oblige, but they have no right to search your property.[/quote]
The store’s property has not entered the equation yet - there is nothing to search and no property for the store to protect. This is a dumb analogy, because entering a store and exiting a store are factually different circumstances - in the former, you had no opportunity to deprive the store of its property.
No, see, this is where it just gets plain stupid - you say “they can’t”. What you mean is, “I wish they couldn’t” or “I wish they didn’t”. When you say "they can’t, you are saying it is currently against the law for the them to demand to see your property - and you can point to no such law.
In fact, use common sense - why would so many merchants, from Sam’s Club to Circuit City, do what is so obviously illegal? It is common practice - and yet, you say “they can’t” - thousands of businesses are breaking the law on a daily basis? Well, Einstein, what do you know that they don’t?
Ridiculous.
“Probable cause” is a legal threshold used in criminal law, one used to secure warrants from judges. Merchants aren’t government entities, so the standard process of “search and seizure” doesn’t apply, so all this talk of “probable cause” makes little sense - if a “victim” thought he was harmed by this “violation of rights”, then he would sue civilly, and be up against things like “reasonable person” standards.
And, ask yourself whether a “reasonable person” would award the “victim” here for his pain - any attorney would belch laughter in your face.
You say “they can’t” - you look like a person with minimal knowledge in the area making information up as you go along. You deserve the insults thrown your way.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Jefferson, Franklin and the gang aren’t exactly still in their graves either.[/quote]
Bull shit. They would shoot your ass dead, and search you after the fact had you gone on their property and gave the impression you were stealing.
If they knew you openly supported the cowardice that is isalmo-fascism - they’d shoot you in the face as you walked in.
God Bless America.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Bull shit. They would shoot your ass dead, and search you after the fact had you gone on their property and gave the impression you were stealing.
If they knew you openly supported the cowardice that is isalmo-fascism - they’d shoot you in the face as you walked in.
God Bless America. [/quote]
Struck a chord there, did I?
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Bull shit. They would shoot your ass dead, and search you after the fact had you gone on their property and gave the impression you were stealing.
If they knew you openly supported the cowardice that is isalmo-fascism - they’d shoot you in the face as you walked in.
God Bless America.
Struck a chord there, did I?[/quote]
A person of your moral fiber attempting to speak for my founding fathers should be met with swift and deadly force.
In short - you are not worthy to lick the ball sweat from Jefferson’s jock strap.
Go build more bombs.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Struck a chord there, did I?[/quote]
Not exactly. When you make reference to the “Founding Fathers”, we all have yet another chuckle at your expense - we’re nicer to you than they would have been.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The store’s property has not entered the equation yet - there is nothing to search and no property for the store to protect. This is a dumb analogy, because entering a store and exiting a store are factually different circumstances - in the former, you had no opportunity to deprive the store of its property.[/quote]
You are missing the point, once you go through a register and pay for your goods, they are your property. As soon as the casheir hands you a receipt, it is also your property. Nobody has the right to demand a search of your property without PC.
Sam’s club can indeed do this because it is a condtion of membership, which every member agrees to when they sign. As I’ve said many times before, Circuit City can ask all they want, but they can’t demand. There are numerous examples of this across the net. I’ll post a few at the end of this.
In this case, I’m not sure how a lawsuit would play out. The question would be whether or not standing between the car and the door constitutes false imprisonement.
This is a good one, a very similar situation where the store later admits to illegal detainment and offers an apology.
http://www.die.net/musings/bestbuy/epilogue.html
Best Buy incident.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thecheckout/2007/03/checking_your_receipt_or_check.html?nav=rss_blog
From the Washington Post.
There are many more examples, you can find them yourself. There obviously is not going to be a law pertaining specifically to this, but many links have already been posted interpreting what the law does say about merchant’s priviledge. The proof is there, some of you just refuse to beleive it.
It’s a sad day when the American people argue for less rights.
[quote]tedro wrote:
You are missing the point, once you go through a register and pay for your goods, they are your property. As soon as the casheir hands you a receipt, it is also your property. Nobody has the right to demand a search of your property without PC.[/quote]
Well, first - you are correct, it is your property, and the store is asking you to prove it is your property and not the store’s. Perfectly within their rights to make you prove that the goods are yours as a matter of protecting against theft.
Second, you don’t need “probable cause”, so stop abusing the term - this is not a 4th Amendment search, so “probable cause” isn’t the standard. Stop pretending it is.
If a government entity demands to search your property, “probable cause” applies (and maybe even less, depending on the situation, like “reasonable suspicion”). If a store is making you prove you paid for the goods you are walking out with - not a violation of “privacy rights” by a government entity.
Most stores have a policy - most often posted near cash registers, if you bother to look - that says in big letters “we reserve the right to (inspect packages, etc.)”. When you go into their store, on their private property, you are consenting to their rules, which often includes the reservation to inspect packages, etc.
It is a condition of doing business there - that is why it works so well and thousands of businesses…wait for it…never get into trouble for conducting a quick search to make sure you paid for the goods you are walking out with.
Ok, then stop your nonsense right there - there is no colorable criminal act (so no prosecution) and, by your own admission, no civil lawsuit (“I’m not sure how a lawsuit would play out”), then there is nothing left.
There is no legal remedy for this, so stop wasting time. False imprisonment is a civil claim, and if you have no idea whether a lawsuit would fly, then stop making up garbage about “the law” - it is clear you have no idea, and you should admit to it.
This is hilarious - “there is not going to be a law pertaining to this” - no? Then how is it illegal, which you keep claiming?
Stores can most certainly be on the hook if they take detainment too far - no question, and no one disputes that. But asking for proof that you aren’t stealing does not instantly trigger “false imprisonment” like you want it to.
You need to learn the difference between “this is illegal” and “I wish this was illegal” - something maybe you will grow into.
It is a sad day when real, honest-to-God “rights” are diminished by numbskulls who claim everything they want to do is a “right”, rather than a “privilege” - it dilutes the meaning of “rights”.