My apologies, read the previous 12 pages and I think you’ll understand my frustation.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Because he called 911. He called 911. I’ll say it again. He called 911. What ever happened with the cops after they showed up is entirely his fault.
Your position has been soundly thumped by numerous people on here, and yet you still continue to sing the same song. Not only that you attempt to act as if you are validated by saying I agree with you.
I don’t Thunder doesn’t. Zap doesn’t. Your position would last a 3 minutes in front of a judge, and that is if he is dyslexic. [/quote]
Wow, three people disagree, I must be wrong. Just because he called 911 doesn’t mean he has to provide information that he is legally allowed to withhold.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I have the right to ask you anything, you have the right not to answer. If I tied you up and beat you until you answered me then I would have violated your rights.
[/quote]
This has been established.
Are you saying I lose my privacy rights when I go out in public? I don’t think so, I still have the right to refuse an unwarranted search.
Can’t answer for him. If it were me I most likely would have fully cooperated with the policeman. However, I can see how he was already perterbed with the receipt issue, and now the cop is demanding he give up even more of his rights.
No, obviously not, but I do think that this is a very slippery slope and we should not blindly give up our rights and follow the herd mentality.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
The key point, the crux, of this whole argument is what I said about 20 posts ago! and it is this:
Is refusal to show a receipt enough “probable cause”, “reasonable belief” (however you wish to phrase it), that a person has shoplifted goods from a store?
Reasonable Suspicion and probable cause? 2 different things, junior.
[/quote]
Pardon the possible misinterpretation between Australian legal jargon and US jargon, but over here we use the term “reasonable belief”.
Regardless of that, the point I made was that some solid grounds must be established before you can proceed to detain somebody, or else you can get yourself in a lot of trouble, because only police are allowed to use those powers - and I believe unless you’re a terror suspect, even THEY can’t do it based upon a hunch alone.
If you detain someone against their will, property owner or not, you can be charged with deprivation of liberty, unlawful detainment, and all kinds of other misdemeanors.
Refusing to show a receipt is not solid enough grounds for detainment of a person. It’s a department store, not the Gestapo, for God’s sake. The most they can do is call the police, give a description and refuse service. In any country with a vestige of sanity left, this is how it is, and that reason for detainment would not hold up in a court.
Reasonable grounds means that you have direct evidence that ‘constitutes belief’ that the customer has committed an offence.
Refusing to show a receipt is indirect evidence of a theft, which is suspicion. And suspicion is not grounds for a citizen’s arrest, otherwise you could arrest anybody you had suspected of committing a crime.
RJ, I understand that you are coming from the position of being a business owner yourself, and that’s why you’re on the side of the business and not the customer.
But God forbid if you ever owned a department store…I would not walk into it. You’re as mean as a bear with a toothache. lol.
I can picture the following scenario:
Rainjack, store owner (holding a 12 year old boy at gunpoint):
“Show me the receipt, you fucking little punk!”
Boy: “NO! I lost it…”
Rainjack: “Then you must’ve stolen something! You’re coming into the back room with me until the cops arrive”
Boy: “Mommy!”
Rainjack: (grabs the kid by the ear and drags him off) “Your momma ain’t around to help you now, junior, and you can’t hide under her panties any longer! This is the deep end of the pool. Now get in the back room, moron!”
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Regardless of that, the point I made was that some solid grounds must be established before you can proceed to detain somebody, or else you can get yourself in a lot of trouble, because only police are allowed to use those powers - and even THEY can’t do it based upon a hunch alone. [/quote]
Please see “merchant privilege”. You are wrong. All I need is reasonable suspicion, and I can detain until the cops arrive.
Refusal to show a receipt can be reasonable suspicion.
Sorry - but, no. When you use terms like “all kinds of misdemeanors” you show your lack of knowledge on this. The ONLY thing that can happen is that the dipshit can file a civil suit against me. And given the facts in this case, his suit would be thrown out within minutes of him filing.
Once again - this is not any country. This is the U.S. where Private property still means something.
You are not in the position to tell me what is solid grounds and what is not. That is a job for LE.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Please see “merchant privilege”. You are wrong. All I need is reasonable suspicion, and I can detain until the cops arrive.
Refusal to show a receipt can be reasonable suspicion.
[/quote]
Scroll back, see the link on Ohio’s merchant privilege. Note it says “probable cause”, not “reasonable suspicion”.
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
RJ, I understand that you are coming from the position of being a business owner yourself, and that’s why you’re on the side of the business and not the customer.
But God forbid if you ever owned a department store, lol. I would not walk into it.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t want some keyboard civil rights idiot walking around my store shoving shit in a sack, and walking out without without paying for any of it, and then having the audacity to think I have no right to ask to see a receipt.
Or maybe I would, just so I could see the look on his face as I am detaining him for the cops. Then I would chuckle out loud as he is handcuffed and put in the back of the squad car sans his stolen merchandise.
No - I’d probably have a sign that said, “I don’t sell to assholes. If you have to ask - then yes…you are an asshole”
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Regardless of that, the point I made was that some solid grounds must be established before you can proceed to detain somebody, or else you can get yourself in a lot of trouble, because only police are allowed to use those powers - and I believe unless you’re a terror suspect, even THEY can’t do it based upon a hunch alone.
If you detain someone against their will, property owner or not, you can be charged with deprivation of liberty, unlawful detainment, and all kinds of other misdemeanors.
Refusing to show a receipt is not solid enough grounds for detainment of a person. It’s a department store, not the Gestapo, for God’s sake. The most they can do is call the police, give a description and refuse service. In any country with a vestige of sanity left, this is how it is, and that reason for detainment would not hold up in a court.
Reasonable grounds means that you have direct evidence that ‘constitutes belief’ that the customer has committed an offence.
Refusing to show a receipt is indirect evidence of a theft, which is suspicion. And suspicion is not grounds for a citizen’s arrest, otherwise you could arrest anybody you had suspected of committing a crime.[/quote]
This basically sums up this entire discussion. We have posted numerous links supporting these claims, yet are still met with arguments with no facts to back them.
[quote]tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Please see “merchant privilege”. You are wrong. All I need is reasonable suspicion, and I can detain until the cops arrive.
Refusal to show a receipt can be reasonable suspicion.
Scroll back, see the link on Ohio’s merchant privilege. Note it says “probable cause”, not “reasonable suspicion”.
[/quote]
And I can still detain - regardless of what Ohio calls it.
How much worse must you get your ass kicked over this before you either let it go, or admit defeat?
Oh well, I’m coming from the position of being a security officer, which is a law enforcement related job. I go by the laws of the state and country I’m in, which I have stated.
I just know the basics - that where I am, you can’t deprive someone of privacy or liberty, even when they are on your property, unless they have committed or are in the process of committing a crime.
The definition of what’s reasonable, that’s what is being argued about the most here.
But I guess, if you’re in the USA, you can legally kill someone for trespassing, so it’s probably a whole different ball game over there.
[quote]tedro wrote:
This basically sums up this entire discussion. We have posted numerous links supporting these claims, yet are still met with arguments with no facts to back them.
[/quote]
Your links prove nothing. There is no where in any of those links that says an owner can’t detain if a customer refuses to show proof of purchase.
You two warriors seem to completely gloss over “merchant privilege”.
You two completely ignore the fact that the dipshit is on private property. Search an seizure rights don’t really apply until the dipshit is detained. Can the owner be sued? Your damn right he can. Any one can sue for anything if they have enough money to pay for the filing fee. But in this case - there is no merit, and it would be tossed in a matter of minutes.
The Ohio statute says nothing about what is required to detain. The only thing it addresses is what can and can’t be done AFTER a dipshit is detained.
You have yet to show how detaining for refusal to provide proof of purchase is illegal anywhere but in your minds.
You guys are on the side of the dipshit. I think everyone gets that. And as much as you guys are wishing otherwise - the store did nothing wrong, and was within their rights to do what they did.
Could the situation have been handled better? I don’t think there is anyone denying that over reaction by all parties is grossly apparent.
But over reaction is not the same thing as denying a dipshit his rights. It could have escalated to something much worse, but as it sits - the dipshit is the only one guilty of anything approaching a crime.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Please see “merchant privilege”. You are wrong. All I need is reasonable suspicion, and I can detain until the cops arrive.
Refusal to show a receipt can be reasonable suspicion.
Scroll back, see the link on Ohio’s merchant privilege. Note it says “probable cause”, not “reasonable suspicion”.
And I can still detain - regardless of what Ohio calls it.
How much worse must you get your ass kicked over this before you either let it go, or admit defeat?
[/quote]
Look, I posted several sites explaining what constitutes reasonable doubt.
Not one description fits that case.
Why should he or I admit defeat?
You are just plain wrong and too lazy to read the links I posted.
I even posted links to about people who acted on much more than mere suspicion and got their asses kicked in court.
So, provide some legal material supporting your ideas please.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Anyway, it was interesting to see some people claim that one has no right to privacy on someone else’s property.
It’s not “interesting”, it’s the law - if we are hanging out and you happen to store drugs you want to sell at my apartment, you have no privacy interest in my apartment w/r/t to the government searching and finding the drugs.
Change “drugs” to “explosives ladened vest”, and you would be more accurate wrt lixy.
[/quote]
LOL!!!
[quote]tedro wrote:
This basically sums up this entire discussion. We have posted numerous links supporting these claims, yet are still met with arguments with no facts to back them.
[/quote]
Yea, I think it’s been said before in this thread…winning an argument has more to do with who can yell the loudest and come up with the most condescending remarks, and less to do with the facts.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
I did not find any legal authority NOT agreeing with me.
Hilarious - and useless in an Ohio court. You really aren’t that smart, are you? You need legal authority in the proper jurisdiction to assure us that you are infallibly correct on it - instead we get California law!
Interesting - but definitive? No.
That should tell you something because all I googled was shoplifting laws with no bias whatsoever.
Yes, in your genius research, you came across several jurisdictions that required a “reasonableness” standard, which actually hurts your claims - because detainment only need to be based on reasonableness, and a jury could easily find that refusal to produce a receipt when asked in a high-theft environment justifies a reasonable belief the bagholder is a thief.
Point is: a jury could go either way, so you can’t say “it is categorically unreasonable”.
You find me a case or a legal source where it says that not showing a receipt constitutes probable cause, otherwise consider your self owned, and a good day to you Sir.
Heh.
You haven’t “owned” a single poster in your tenure here, tough guy - and you haven’t done so in a thread where you randomly cite cases not even on point.
This pathetic display ranks right up there with your (mis)understanding of the US Constitution. It is as though you and Lixy take turns sharing the same limited brain.[/quote]
Look Darling, before you tell me how dumb I am and how much my understanding of US laws is lacking, you should make sure not to write so much horseshit.
Especially that “probable cause” will be determined by a jury, which it would not be, it would decided by a court as a question of law using the precedences I posted.
Which you did not read or you would know that too.
Anything else, genius?
Just curious: who owns the bag? If the bag is technically still property of the store, they would certainly have every legal right to look in the bag.
Until someone has left the property, it may be that the bag still belongs to the store.
Carry on, gents. GREAT thread!
[quote]orion wrote:
Look, I posted several sites explaining what constitutes reasonable doubt.
Not one description fits that case.
Why should he or I admit defeat?
You are just plain wrong and too lazy to read the links I posted.
I even posted links to about people who acted on much more than mere suspicion and got their asses kicked in court.
So, provide some legal material supporting your ideas please.
[/quote]
I read your links. I addressed them. And moved on.
When you say they got their asses kicked in court - they were never charged for any crime.
This is what you miss every time you post. It doesn’t matter what the courts will do. That is not the owners responsibility.
His responsibility is to ensure that people don’t steal shit from his store. After that - it’s out of his hands.
You and the others are applying LE rules to private property owners, and excluding the rule of merchant privilege.
There is no legal material to support any of these ideas because there is no law addressing this. I have asked you guys repeatedly to show me where it says it is illegal to detain for refusal to show proof of purchase, and the best anyone can do is tell me what the dipshit’s rights are AFTER he is detained.
Why do you think that is? Because it is a matter for LE. Once a dipshit is detained, it becomes an LE matter. There is absolutely no rule that I have found, anywhere, that dictates what may trigger an owner to detain.
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
tedro wrote:
This basically sums up this entire discussion. We have posted numerous links supporting these claims, yet are still met with arguments with no facts to back them.
Yea, I think it’s been said before in this thread…winning an argument has more to do with who can yell the loudest and come up with the most condescending remarks, and less to do with the facts.[/quote]
I agree.
Since we allready won the actual debate let us warm up for the name calling and condescension round.
Could a Mod let us know if I can use swearwords in German?
***mod reply: Quite a few english swear words get through in the politics forum. Let’s keep 'em english, so I know you’re not calling for jihad or an attack on nuns in Germany. j/k
I think I found something here, in another blog site, from somebody in the know. They commented:
"Most states require “reason to believe” a person is stealing in order to physically detain until a policeman arrives, and some require the stronger “probably cause” to believe.
Stepping around rather than thru an electronic tag detector is specifically listed as reason to believe or probable cause in many of those laws. Trying to be clear on the difference between what I know and what I think - I think (seemm to recall) recent amendments to state shoplifting laws giving a human bag checker the same legal status as an electronic tag detector. It’s a Catch 22, refusing to show your receipt becomes reason to believe or probable cause to detain you.
And every state law that I know of exempts retailers from criminal or civil prosecution by a detained person (even if innocent) if the retailer properly follows the legal procedure. Obviously if they violate/abuse the procedure thru intent or negligence or ignorance, they are civilly liable and possible criminally liable. (I am not a lawyer. I’m a retired journalist who edits legistive digests on a broad variety of topics.)"
So if that is the case, and the bag checker has same legal status as tag detector, then yes, they could detain him.
I’m still standing up for the guy though.
I don’t want to see the population of a nation end up on a slippery slope, because it is a long way down.