[quote]tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:
tedro wrote:
Because an electronic sensor just looks for a magnet. It doesn’t rifle through your belongings or scan your receipt to see what you bought. It doesn’t know if you bought a cart full of g-strings, hemorhoid cream, or a cucumber and ky.
In an electronics store?
Try harder.
Any Hugh Grant flick, a pink ipod, Princess Diaries, or as Righi bought, Disneys’s Cars for Wii.
You are creating pointless arguments instead of simply admitting you are wrong.[/quote]
Unless I am mistaken - The checker knows exactly what you purchased. How is it an invasion of privacy to verify that you still have only those items in your bag?
No violation of privacy regardless if it is human or electronic eyes verifying the purchase.
I have nothing to admit with respect to thi issue. When I was mistaken - I freely admitted to it.
If you are shopping for cucumbers in a Circuit City - you have much larger problems than your perceived rights being violated.
[quote]orion wrote:
If stolen property was not discovered you are looking forward to charges against “false imprisonment”, defamation, and possibly a civil process on top of it.[/quote]
Not if there was probable cause - reasonable suspicion - to detain the customer.
[quote]Unless you can shop you acted withing your rights, establishing probable cause first which you cannot just by asking for a receipt.
edit: I allready have one case, it is from Texas though.
[/quote]
Merchant privilege. And you have yet to show that failure to show a receipt is not probable cause. There is a post by what’s-his-name that pretty much shows that failure to show a receipt can be probable cause just as much as attempting to bypass an electronic tag checker. They are performing the exact same task.
You are fucking delusional if you think that criminal charges would be brought against an owner for detaining someone that did not shop lift providing he showed probable cause - reasonable suspicion.
And as i have said before - I will be more than happy to take my chances in civil court in this particular case. That is the dipshit’s only recourse.
[quote]orion wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
orion wrote:
"
Probable cause is not a question of fact for the jury but a question of law for the court to decide, to be determined by the circumstances at the time of detention."
Not to really jump into this pissing contest but if the store has a sign posted they will check all bags it would put a different slant on things.
I don’t think anyone saw him shoplifting but if an employee had seen him shoplift they could detain him and use the powers of Citizen’s Arrest. But I don’t think that is the case here.
Again, this is only the one side of what happened told by a guy who obviously has some issues.
Does anyone else see the guys actions and the store employees actions as an ego thing? Both of them saying “I’ll show you.”
I bet the cop was irritated as heck that a 911 call was placed over this. 911 is for life threatening emergencies.
I am not saying he did not behave stupid. I am just saying he had every right to behave that way. Being stupid is not illegal.
[/quote]
I agree with this. I also think the store employee behaved stupidly but legally.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
If stolen property was not discovered you are looking forward to charges against “false imprisonment”, defamation, and possibly a civil process on top of it.
Not if there was probable cause - reasonable suspicion - to detain the customer.
Unless you can shop you acted withing your rights, establishing probable cause first which you cannot just by asking for a receipt.
edit: I allready have one case, it is from Texas though.
Merchant privilege. And you have yet to show that failure to show a receipt is not probable cause. There is a post by what’s-his-name that pretty much shows that failure to show a receipt can be probable cause just as much as attempting to bypass an electronic tag checker. They are performing the exact same task.
You are fucking delusional if you think that criminal charges would be brought against an owner for detaining someone that did not shop lift providing he showed probable cause - reasonable suspicion.
And as i have said before - I will be more than happy to take my chances in civil court in this particular case. That is the dipshit’s only recourse.
[/quote]
And again “probable cause” is not “reasonable suspicion”. YOur saying so, does not make it so.
Period.
Oh my, look who agrees with me?
Could it be the fucking Ohio attorney general’s office and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Customers have the right to say no, said Lewis Katz, a Case Western Reserve University law professor and author of "Know Your Rights." That's why store employees and security guards usually ask permission. Security guards are allowed to search you without a warrant in three specific instances, said Jennifer Brindisi, a spokeswoman for Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann. That's at the border, in the airport and before entering private property. Otherwise, unless you're prepared to take a stand, it's easier to comply, ACLU Ohio Director Jeff Gamso said.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
If you are in someone’s house, do you respect their rules?
He is on someone else’s property, he should respect their rules.
[/quote]
Your viewpoint is skewed because you’re a Texan. Still, even in Texas, you can’t search me if I am on your property. You can’t detain me without probable cause. All you can do is ask me to leave your property.
The store isn’t “someone’s house”. It’s a business actively trying to attract clientèle, so your analogy is rubbish. The rules of a store, if there are any, should be displayed where everybody can see them. Most stores however, avoid posting agreements such as “by entering the shop, you agree to not resist us searching your bags and possessions” for a good reason: They scare customers away! The prevailing status quo present today is that you give your receipt not-to-lose-time-bickering or because-everybody-else-does-it. Shops are very happy with it and many legally-illiterate people don’t know that it’s a right people are willingly giving up rather than a right the shop is exercising (see Zap & RJ).
[quote]lixy wrote:
The prevailing status quo present today is that you give your receipt not-to-lose-time-bickering or because-everybody-else-does-it. Shops are very happy with it and many legally-illiterate people don’t know that it’s a right people are willingly giving up rather than a right the shop is exercising (see Zap & RJ). [/quote]
This is like protesters who get mad at people protesting against them.
Stores have the right to ask.
I have the right to ask.
I have the right to get in your face and demand to see your ID, your receipt, your teeth, whatever I want. I have the freedom to do so.
Rights aren’t one-sided.
Stores as private property and the employees do have rights to ban, detain and use powers of Citizen’s Arrest
What they are (pathetically?) trying to show, is that the store can violate your rights while you’re on its property. [/quote]
No, they’re trying to explain to you that you only have rights in terms of government. Rights are rules which you may objectively apply against the intrusions of government. The source of those rights is inherent but the expression of those rights is with respect to government — they are your protection.
You have no rights with regard to another person or against a business. Government may intrude upon THEM and force them to hire people they don’t want to hire or rent to people they don’t like. You, however, have no rights with respect to the business owner with regard to the business.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
If stolen property was not discovered you are looking forward to charges against “false imprisonment”, defamation, and possibly a civil process on top of it.
Not if there was probable cause - reasonable suspicion - to detain the customer.
Unless you can shop you acted withing your rights, establishing probable cause first which you cannot just by asking for a receipt.
edit: I allready have one case, it is from Texas though.
Merchant privilege. And you have yet to show that failure to show a receipt is not probable cause. There is a post by what’s-his-name that pretty much shows that failure to show a receipt can be probable cause just as much as attempting to bypass an electronic tag checker. They are performing the exact same task.
You are fucking delusional if you think that criminal charges would be brought against an owner for detaining someone that did not shop lift providing he showed probable cause - reasonable suspicion.
And as i have said before - I will be more than happy to take my chances in civil court in this particular case. That is the dipshit’s only recourse.
And again “probable cause” is not “reasonable suspicion”. YOur saying so, does not make it so.
Period.
Oh my, look who agrees with me?
…
[/quote]
Did you read this? The attorney general is not charging the security guard. I wonder why…
You have the right not to show a receipt. The store also has a right to be a big pain in your ass and let the cops sort it out.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You have the right not to show a receipt. The store also has a right to be a big pain in your ass and let the cops sort it out.[/quote]
I have to wonder why this is so hard for some people to grasp. So far the ONLY reports we have are from the POV of the asshole. There has been no court cases substantiating anything.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You have the right not to show a receipt. The store also has a right to be a big pain in your ass and let the cops sort it out.
I have to wonder why this is so hard for some people to grasp. So far the ONLY reports we have are from the POV of the asshole. There has been no court cases substantiating anything.
[/quote]
They just want the authorities to be wrong. It doesn’t seem the store was wrong in this case.
If the store would have dragged him into a back room, handcuffed him and searched him they would have been wrong. Amazingly the store has this right when they see a guy stuff merchandise down his pants.
Since they didn’t see him do that they just got in his face until the cops came, as is their right.
You have the right not to show a receipt. The store also has a right to be a big pain in your ass and let the cops sort it out.[/quote]
No he hadnt and that is exactly what the attorney general said through his spokes person. So, the store person had no probable cause, therefore no right to detain and the cop wasnt even allowed to ask for his ID.
That should be settled now.
Therefore and I repeat myself, the storeowner can now look forward to charges concerning “false imprisonment”, defamation, and possibly a civil suit worth around 30000 to 100000 on top of it.
They just want the authorities to be wrong. It doesn’t seem the store was wrong in this case.
If the store would have dragged him into a back room, handcuffed him and searched him they would have been wrong. Amazingly the store has this right when they see a guy stuff merchandise down his pants. [/quote]
Amazingly they do not even have that right WHEN they see him stuff merchandise down his pants, because exactly the same rules apply.
That is when they begin to have the right to detain him UNTIL a policemen can arrest him and not before.
Jesus, is reading laws that hard?
[quote]
Since they didn’t see him do that they just got in his face until the cops came, as is their right.[/quote]
Really? Where is that written down?
I have shown the paragraphs, that the Ohio attorney general disagrees with you, another case where the officer called to the scene told the storekeeper that he had no right to detain someone because he would not show the receipts and the definitions of probable cause.
I have even shown that “probable cause” is by most courts treated as a question of law and not by the jury and that Ohio merchants and other professionels strongly disagree with your idea on how to handle this.
And, of course where some people tried to handle it your way and LOST.
Don´t you think it is time to offer a bit more than a gut feeling?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You have the right not to show a receipt. The store also has a right to be a big pain in your ass and let the cops sort it out.
I have to wonder why this is so hard for some people to grasp. So far the ONLY reports we have are from the POV of the asshole. There has been no court cases substantiating anything.