Arrested For Not Showing License

[hedo]

The store can and should set the rules for shopping there. If the rules are deemed to restrictive then people will vote with their feet and not shop there.

Creating an environment where stealing is easy and not enforced only encourages theft. If a big box retailer is experiencing 5% inventory shrinkage with enforcement, doing nothing will send it even higher. This will cause the store to raise prices which in turn penalizes everyone.

Clearly this guy is an ass. The store didn’t arrest hium and if the guy was a dumb ass he could have just taken off. Acting like an ass to a cop, will get you busted just about anywhere. In many countries you’ll rot in jail for awhile and maybe worse. You can’t fix stupid and this guy got exactly what he asked for.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Just because we have different priorities doesn’t make this guy wrong. Just because I like the idea of swimming upstream doesn’t make the guy right, either.[/quote]

I’d never seen an ass that could fit so many fences before.

One wonders how you manage to decide between drawing the next breath, or not.

[Big_Boss]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Leaving the store with merchandise and refusing to show a receipt is reasonable grounds to believe an offense may have been committed.

It looks like the store employee used reasonable force and did not commit assault as well.

Perhaps. Unless more people simply refused to show a receipt…

Anyway, the store employee did not arrest him, so he had no right to detain him at all – according to the rules posted above you don’t have to do anything unless “arrested”, except leave if asked.

This may be why, assuming laws and other bullshit, the guy called the cops on his own.

If I go to your home, or your business, you don’t have the right to search my pockets against my will, do you?[/quote]

No person would have that right…all they can do is ask you to leave their house. Thats false imprisonment territory…unless they have reasonable cause that someone has stolen something from your house,business,etc.

You then have right to make citizens arrest…which pretty much only gives you right to detain someone…not physically search them…which after reading this:

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

I think this pretty much sums it up. If the store has evidence for probable cause to suspect shoplifting(or maybe the cashier was being investigated,who knows) they were warranted in their actions. If they don’t have this evidence, the guy has a case…even if he was an ass. End of story.

As for the whole ID,obstructing justice,its more complicated:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.31

It states he doesn’t have to give info BEYOND name,D.O.B.,ADDRESS. Three things that are common to police to accurately identify people and found on driver’s license.

Since when do police officers have to take someone’s word as to i.d. them? People give false names all the time. The police officer wasn’t just asking some stranger in the parking lot for his I.D. He was investigating a POSSIBLE crime. By refusing his request,he is delaying his duties to investigate POSSIBLE crime.

Thats one possible view…doesn’t Ohio have some kind of Patriot Act?? If so the police have right ask for I.D. regardless. If thats the case the guy losses this battle.

[lixy]

[quote]vroom wrote:
In Canada, if I’m not mistaken, the concept is having “care and control” of a motor vehicle while under the influence. You can be standing outside the vehicle and putting your keys in the door… [/quote]

This is insane!

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Leaving the store with merchandise and refusing to show a receipt is reasonable grounds to believe an offense may have been committed.

It looks like the store employee used reasonable force and did not commit assault as well.

Perhaps. Unless more people simply refused to show a receipt…

Anyway, the store employee did not arrest him, so he had no right to detain him at all – according to the rules posted above you don’t have to do anything unless “arrested”, except leave if asked.

This may be why, assuming laws and other bullshit, the guy called the cops on his own.

If I go to your home, or your business, you don’t have the right to search my pockets against my will, do you?[/quote]

I don’t really know, but if you come in my house, don’t follow my rules of conduct and I suspect you of stealing something I don’t believe I would treat you same as if you were just randomly walking down the street and I wondered what you had in your pocket.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If I think you stole something from me, in my home - I would most certainly have the right to do anything necessary to keep you from leaving my property with my property. If you don’t want to prove you didn’t steal - I have the right to detain you until law enforcement arrives. You have the right to leave and never come back.
[/quote]

Yeah, it’s a citizens arrest. If the store owner or employee thought the guy had committed a crime, that is what he should have done. Apparently he did not.

You are focusing on the wrong issue.

The store owner is not permitted to conduct a search, nor does a consumer have to do anything to “prove innocence” to the store owner. The police can come and determine innocence and guilt as appropriate.

I’m not against property rights, if that is what you think.

[vroom]

[quote]hedo wrote:
Creating an environment where stealing is easy and not enforced only encourages theft. If a big box retailer is experiencing 5% inventory shrinkage with enforcement, doing nothing will send it even higher. This will cause the store to raise prices which in turn penalizes everyone.[/quote]

Nobody likes higher prices, but the risk of higher prices may not be a good reason to submit to whatever business wants to do.

[quote]
Clearly this guy is an ass. The store didn’t arrest hium and if the guy was a dumb ass he could have just taken off. Acting like an ass to a cop, will get you busted just about anywhere. In many countries you’ll rot in jail for awhile and maybe worse. You can’t fix stupid and this guy got exactly what he asked for.[/quote]

So, you are saying abuse of authority is appropriate for people that disrespect (though obey) authority? No wonder people don’t respect authority!

It seems like a lot, perhaps most, of the people reacting are angry at the guy for being an asshole, and then justify whatever negative consequences arrive because of that. The issue is not whether or not the guy was an ass…

The funny thing about rights is that they apply to assholes and people you don’t like, who are doing things you don’t like, or they don’t actually exist.

[Big_Boss]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
If I go to your home, or your business, you don’t have the right to search my pockets against my will, do you?

Who was searching anyone’s pockets? The asshole was asked to show his receipt. You are taking this to an absurd level. He was asked to show a receipt. He was asked to show a receipt. He was asked to show a receipt. Where in that do you divine searching pockets?

If I think you stole something from me, in my home - I would most certainly have the right to do anything necessary to keep you from leaving my property with my property. If you don’t want to prove you didn’t steal - I have the right to detain you until law enforcement arrives. You have the right to leave and never come back.

If you are in my house in the State of Texas, and I have justifiable reason to think my life, or the life of my family is in danger - I can kill you dead, and would not receive so much as a ticket.

It’s a wonderful thing when property owners actually have rights.

[/quote]

Its all bad for the criminal even if all he does is stick his pinky in your window. He could steal a cookie and have a weapon on him and its over for him. It is a wonderful thing since it also protects you civilly. Even if sued, I can handle that burden better than having my family or me harmed or killed.

[nephorm]

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Thats one possible view…doesn’t Ohio have some kind of Patriot Act?? If so the police have right ask for I.D. regardless. If thats the case the guy losses this battle.
[/quote]

I think you leap to a lot of conclusions…

[lixy]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t really know, but if you come in my house, don’t follow my rules of conduct and I suspect you of stealing something I don’t believe I would treat you same as if you were just randomly walking down the street and I wondered what you had in your pocket.[/quote]

Which rule of conduct did Michael not follow? He paid for the merchandise he purchased and was on his way home. The employee randomly decided to search him, which is illegal without proper consent.

I have a pal working in a shop in France and he always has stories like this. They always show the “suspect” evidence of shoplifting on CCTV, at which point pretty much everyone returns the stolen item. In the case of Michael, the store had nothing on him. Just a minimum wage imbecile who’s never been briefed on the law, and who never dealt with a tin-foil nerd.

Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If I think you stole something from me, in my home - I would most certainly have the right to do anything necessary to keep you from leaving my property with my property. If you don’t want to prove you didn’t steal - I have the right to detain you until law enforcement arrives. You have the right to leave and never come back.

Yeah, it’s a citizens arrest. If the store owner or employee thought the guy had committed a crime, that is what he should have done. Apparently he did not.

You are focusing on the wrong issue.

The store owner is not permitted to conduct a search, nor does a consumer have to do anything to “prove innocence” to the store owner. The police can come and determine innocence and guilt as appropriate.

I’m not against property rights, if that is what you think.[/quote]

You are not even in the right story. No one wanted to search anyone. The motherfucker was asked to show his receipt, and in a show of X-Box generation independence refused. He should have been detained, as he was.

You guys want to act like he is some sort of “stick it to the man” rebel. He’s a punk-assed little bitch. At the very least he should be permanently banned from that store.

I have no idea what you are for or against. Evidently, neither does pookie. You and lixy and the rest of the “a store owner has no rights” brigade seem to be endorsing shoplifting, and steadfastly against a store owner’s right to protect his property from theft.

There is no need for him to act like a twat. If you don’t like the store policy, just find a different store.

Being a twat is just a sign that you are a twat. And twats should have no rights.

[rainjack]

[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
Just because we have different priorities doesn’t make this guy wrong. Just because I like the idea of swimming upstream doesn’t make the guy right, either.

I’d never seen an ass that could fit so many fences before.

One wonders how you manage to decide between drawing the next breath, or not.
[/quote]

All my rainjackisms are fully copyrighted. You will be hearing from my lawyer.

[Big_Boss]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Thats one possible view…doesn’t Ohio have some kind of Patriot Act?? If so the police have right ask for I.D. regardless. If thats the case the guy losses this battle.

I think you leap to a lot of conclusions…[/quote]

No shit…I haven’t laid claim to all truths.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If I think you stole something from me, in my home - I would most certainly have the right to do anything necessary to keep you from leaving my property with my property. If you don’t want to prove you didn’t steal - I have the right to detain you until law enforcement arrives. You have the right to leave and never come back.

Yeah, it’s a citizens arrest. If the store owner or employee thought the guy had committed a crime, that is what he should have done. Apparently he did not.

You are focusing on the wrong issue.

The store owner is not permitted to conduct a search, nor does a consumer have to do anything to “prove innocence” to the store owner. The police can come and determine innocence and guilt as appropriate.

I’m not against property rights, if that is what you think.[/quote]

You are setting up a straw man. The store did not conduct a search. They merely asked to see a receipt and since he refused to show it to them they assumed he may have stolen merchandise.

[lixy]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
All my rainjackisms are fully copyrighted. You will be hearing from my lawyer. [/quote]

Your jackassisms are dull and childish. Pookie is insightful and witty.

Don’t flatter yourself.

[lixy]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The store did not conduct a search. They merely asked to see a receipt and since he refused to show it to them they assumed he may have stolen merchandise.[/quote]

Did you suffer brain damage lately? How is demanding a receipt that’s in my pocket any different than conducting a search?

[Gkhan]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Conform, submit to authority, you have no rights.
[/quote]

You’re absolutely right. I’m glad we have people in this country like this kid. Thanks to his unselfish deed, America is one step away from turning into a totalitarian dictatorship. How dare they try to make us conform and turn us into unquestioning autonoms. This kid should be given a gold cross for making the world safe for democracy!

Heaven forbid if this kid gets carded for beer in a 7-11. It will be time for a revolution!

[rainjack]

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
All my rainjackisms are fully copyrighted. You will be hearing from my lawyer.

Your jackassisms are dull and childish. Pookie is insightful and witty.

Don’t flatter yourself.[/quote]

Pookie is insightful and witty enough to steal my schtick, that’s for sure. I certainly hope you are not under the impression that wordplay on my screen name is either new, witty, or insightful.

The mere idea of you thinking you could identify wit, or insight, should generate a chuckle of sympathy from everyone that has ever read a single line of your bullshit.

Just knowing that a murderous thug such as yourself finds me dull and childish makes me laugh. How many murders must one commit before they are not childish? Is it in your Koran, or whatever book of death you divine your pathetic existence from?

[hedo]

[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Creating an environment where stealing is easy and not enforced only encourages theft. If a big box retailer is experiencing 5% inventory shrinkage with enforcement, doing nothing will send it even higher. This will cause the store to raise prices which in turn penalizes everyone.

Nobody likes higher prices, but the risk of higher prices may not be a good reason to submit to whatever business wants to do.

Clearly this guy is an ass. The store didn’t arrest hium and if the guy was a dumb ass he could have just taken off. Acting like an ass to a cop, will get you busted just about anywhere. In many countries you’ll rot in jail for awhile and maybe worse. You can’t fix stupid and this guy got exactly what he asked for.

So, you are saying abuse of authority is appropriate for people that disrespect (though obey) authority? No wonder people don’t respect authority!

It seems like a lot, perhaps most, of the people reacting are angry at the guy for being an asshole, and then justify whatever negative consequences arrive because of that. The issue is not whether or not the guy was an ass…

The funny thing about rights is that they apply to assholes and people you don’t like, who are doing things you don’t like, or they don’t actually exist.[/quote]

Ultimately it’s the customers choice. If he doesn’t like the stores policy he can shop somewhere else, perhaps one that is easier to steal from and has higher prices.

If people disrespect authority they shouldn’t expect authority to show them respect either. In other words act like an asshole you get treated like one. That’s what happened here. Civility is the best way to handle confrontation in most cases. If you escalate you shouldn’t cry when the opposition escalates back.

[jlesk68]

Damn this is fun.