Arrested For Not Showing License

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
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.

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.

[/quote]

The employee asked him to show a receipt. This is not an illegal search. He failed to do so. This caused the employee to suspect him of theft.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Your failure to understand simple analogies reflects poorly on you.

[Gkhan]

[quote]lixy wrote:

David Montalvo, 36, found this out as he responsibly tried to sleep off his intoxication in his GMC pickup truck while safely stopped in the parking lot of the Market Place Deli on a cold February morning last year. At around 5am he awoke to see a Hamburg Police Department patrolman standing over him.[/i]

New Jersey Upholds DUI for a Man in Parked Vehicle

When the hell was common sense lost?[/quote]

The story does not say where the guy got drunk. Was he drinking inside the Market Place Deli to the point of intoxication? If so, maybe it was ok that he tried to sleep it off. If he drank somewhere else and drove there I see a problem.

The article says the cop checked on the truck which was sitting in park with the motor running. The cop discovered the intoxicated man sleeping inside and gave him a dui.

In my state, if you are in your car or a truck without a seat belt and a cop catches you, you can get a ticket, so just the fact that the dude was drunk in a vehicle may be part of the problem.

If he was sleeping, who’s to say that in a half hour he wouldn’t wake up, try to drive home, get into an accident and kill or injure himself or another?

As far as the guy in the store goes…I’ll talk to a store detective I know asap and get back to you guys on what he says about this situation.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
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.

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

Because he did not do or even suggest a search. He merely asked for a receipt to demonstrate that the item was purchased and not stolen. Kind of the whole point of a receipt.

If the employee started going through the guys pockets you might have a point but as far as I know that did not happen.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
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]

Apparently, a large (very large) proportion of the population does not feel oppressed by receipt and bag checking at the exit. If a customer does not wish to submit to those practices (which is his right), he can choose to shop elsewhere.

I still think the whole stand is based on completely ridiculous premises. Chances are you are filmed in the parking, filmed in the store, you might be followed by a store detective; you show all your items to the cashier, you might give the store your name, address and financial info (if you’re getting store credit, those “buy now, pay much later” deals); at the very least about 90% of people hand over their credit card.

After all that, you go nuts because someone wishes to verify your receipt and your bag? You feel violated in your privacy because someone want to see what was in plain view in your cart two minutes ago and wishes to see a piece of paper the store just handed you?

That sounds like a worthy cause to you?

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

I think most people don’t really share the guys outrage at what transpired, given that most people peg him as a stupid ass about 10 lines into his story.

It’s harder to get worked up when the stupids get abused after asking for it.

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…

Ah, but that’s another problem. All those asses wasting time, money and resources end up costing us money. If cops weren’t used as “mommies” to settle ridiculous shopping mall arguments all the time, we could have less of them.

No one is saying to roll over and play dead when real abuse takes place or is about to take place. But making mountain out of molehills won’t make you many friends.

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.

The guy has the right to be an asshole all he wants. The right he doesn’t have is to expect sympathy and understanding from onlookers.

[pookie]

[quote]lixy wrote:
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.

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

First, you’re asked for voluntary compliance and not submitted to it forcefully if you refuse.

Second, the purpose is not to take inventory of what you have on you, nor to figure out your identity or home address, it is simply to verify that you paid for the content of your bag.

By his actions and decisions, the guy ended up giving away a lot more information about himself that if he simply had shown the (anonymous) receipt in the first place. The manager now knows his name, the make and model of his car, his license plate number, that he has kids, etc.

Having the guy argue this as a privacy and personal rights issue is rather ironic.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.[/quote]

Rainjack, I know you like to split hairs. I realize the employee did not say let me look in your bag and match the receipt to what you bought. However, the guy was carrying a bag which generally implies he went through the cashier and bought something.

When we got our local Walmart here, the employee would actually look in the bag to see the receipt. This is where the concept of “searching” is being brought into this (from me). In any case, you don’t have to empty your pockets, take anything out of a bag, or whatever if you don’t want to. You can then have the police called on you if the store wants to do so.

Nobody is at fault in that process. It’s simply “the process” that should be followed.

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.

Look, it’s all fun to suggest I have no opinion, or won’t express one, but the issue here is not what I feel about the idiot who wouldn’t show his receipt.

The issue here is a search for the truth of the matter and as a result who can legitimately do what.

The store is obviously able to perform a citizens arrest any time they wish. Who the fuck has argued otherwise? There is an appropriate process to be followed and perhaps standard operating procedures, which people are used to, which may not follow that process.

Nobody is arguing against the right to protect property from theft… at least I don’t think so.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Every has rights… twats or not. That’s the whole fucking point of your constitution and it is part of what makes your country great. Perhaps you see it as a weakness instead?

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Apparently, a large (very large) proportion of the population does not feel oppressed by receipt and bag checking at the exit. If a customer does not wish to submit to those practices (which is his right), he can choose to shop elsewhere.
[/quote]

No shit. I’m a receipt showing automaton myself. However, if every store requests receipt review, then it gets more difficult to take your business elsewhere.

That sounds like a worthy cause to you?

No, not to me. I never suggested it was something that I thought I would do.

[quote]
I think most people don’t really share the guys outrage at what transpired, given that most people peg him as a stupid ass about 10 lines into his story.

It’s harder to get worked up when the stupids get abused after asking for it.[/quote]

See, abuse of authority is something that I do get worked up about. It creates hatred of the police. Just cruise through some low rent neighborhoods and see how hated those people are.

It was a shock to me when I first ran into people that actively hated the police and had tales to tell about how they had abused friends and family.

Were these people saints? I doubt it. But an open animosity between the public and police probably isn’t the most productive situation.

[quote]
Ah, but that’s another problem. All those asses wasting time, money and resources end up costing us money. If cops weren’t used as “mommies” to settle ridiculous shopping mall arguments all the time, we could have less of them.

No one is saying to roll over and play dead when real abuse takes place or is about to take place. But making mountain out of molehills won’t make you many friends.[/quote]

We all get to make our own decisions about what the molehills and mountains actually are. If that costs us more, or costs the store more, then perhaps there are other solutions to the problem that could be found.

The guy has the right to be an asshole all he wants. The right he doesn’t have is to expect sympathy and understanding from onlookers.

I don’t think the point is sympathy and understanding. If the guy has the right to be an asshole (in the way he was), then he can expect not to get arrested by the police for it.

[rainjack]

[quote]pookie wrote:

By his actions and decisions, the guy ended up giving away a lot more information about himself that if he simply had shown the (anonymous) receipt in the first place. The manager now knows his name, the make and model of his car, his license plate number, that he has kids, etc.
[/quote]

No. No. No. You miss the point. He was being a tough guy. A rebel. He was giving all those that are sick and tired of the endless corporate oppression a glimpse of light, a ray of hope. He is the new standard bearer for the right to personal privacy. My God - the slacker should get a fucking medal for his selfless bravery…

Maybe if more rebels would do that there would be less rebels shopping where I do, seeing as how they would probably be banned for life, or so riddled with legal bills they could no longer shop.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

How do you know this guy was selling drugs in the store?[/quote]

I never said he was - you just aren’t that bright, are you?

I stated there was no privacy right in other people’s property and used an example to demonstrate that concept.

This is a case of abuse and you don’t see it because virtually everybody complies with store searches. There is nothing legal about it, and is something stores are sneaking past the customers…at least in Europe.

You keep making this mistake - what happens in Europe is completely irrelevant as to whether it is illegal in the US.

You say there is “nothing legal about it” - how is that? You have law, or does that just “feel good” to you?

Like I said, it’s interesting to see you ramble about stores’ rights to search people. Pathetic and telling plenty about your mindset.

Lixy feels threatened - but it is too late. You have already made clear you have no idea what the law in the US is, and everyone is clear on that.

Private businesses most certainly can search packages, etc. - the 4th Amendment applies to government entities.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

You are a group?

If you’re referring to the Zap, RJ, T-bolt gang, I’ll remind you that they cheer Guantanamo, wiretapping, and CCTVs. They definitely don’t qualify in the group you’re descibing.[/quote]

And we put babies on spikes. Never forget that.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
No. No. No. You miss the point. He was being a tough guy. A rebel. He was giving all those that are sick and tired of the endless corporate oppression a glimpse of light, a ray of hope. He is the new standard bearer for the right to personal privacy. My God - the slacker should get a fucking medal for his selfless bravery…

Maybe if more rebels would do that there would be less rebels shopping where I do, seeing as how they would probably be banned for life, or so riddled with legal bills they could no longer shop.
[/quote]

I don’t suppose you’ve heard any people suggest admiration for a certain president because he stands firm with respect to acting on his beliefs?

Often, what is admirable, or objectionable, depends on the status of the person who does it.

P.S. If you look above, you’ll see TB talking about the right to “search” even if you were not.

[Peter1968]

[quote]pookie wrote:
I think a lot of these Avengers fight the tiny, trivial battles because they don’t have the guts to fight the real ones. Then they can tell themselves that they really went and stuck it to “The Man” when all they really did was waste a lot of people’s time bickering with a store manager.
[/quote]

Well said. That’s exactly it.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Look, it’s all fun to suggest I have no opinion, or won’t express one, but the issue here is not what I feel about the idiot who wouldn’t show his receipt.[/quote]

I think the problem stems not from you having no opinion, but from that you seem to want to have them all simultaneously.

It’s as if you’re so afraid to miss a side of an issue, that you’re unable to dismiss those not worthy of serious consideration.

Relax. Let go. It’s ok to adopt the position that seems best to you and defend it. If along the way, you change your mind, that’s ok too.

Trying to defend every viewpoint with equal fervor leaves you unable to consider one of them deeply enough to give it serious thought and maybe gain some insight. That’s why people make “sitting on the fence” jokes and call you Master of the Obvious.

We are all aware of the many sides of the various issues. Most of us simply feel that they are not all worthy of being seriously entertained. And if two major sides of an issue are present, most of us tend to pick one and defend that point.

In this case, you’re not for the guy, nor are you against the guy. You’re not for the store, nor against the store… etc. The “objective truth” of the situation you’re looking for doesn’t exist. If it does, it’s forever unattainable to us because no one has perfect knowledge of all the details (including each individual’s thought process during the events) involved in the entire situation. At best, we can reach conclusions based on hypothetical similar situations.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
No shit. I’m a receipt showing automaton myself. However, if every store requests receipt review, then it gets more difficult to take your business elsewhere.[/quote]

That fact alone should be enough to tell you two things:

1. If all stores do it, it’s because it’s profitable for them to do so. Reduced theft = reduced losses = more profit / better prices for the customers.

2. If all store can afford to do it, it’s because most people don’t feel inconvenienced by it. Or at least, not enough to have taken their business elsewhere when only a few stores did it.

And even if your premise of “all stores do it” was true, you’d still have two possibilities:

1. Shop online. I hardly think anyone is going to have a clerk drive to your home and ask for a printout of your transaction.

2. See the manager before you make any purchase and inform him that you’ll refuse the bag and receipt check upon exiting. Tell him that his agreement to those terms is required before you do your shopping. If he refuses, repeat with another store until you find a sympathetic manager who has a soft spot for morons.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
I think the problem stems not from you having no opinion, but from that you seem to want to have them all simultaneously.

It’s as if you’re so afraid to miss a side of an issue, that you’re unable to dismiss those not worthy of serious consideration.

Relax. Let go. It’s ok to adopt the position that seems best to you and defend it. If along the way, you change your mind, that’s ok too.[/quote]

Pay attention. I’ve pretty much said we should let people pick and choose their own fucking battles as long as they behave within the law.

Trying to defend every viewpoint with equal fervor leaves you unable to consider one of them deeply enough to give it serious thought and maybe gain some insight. That’s why people make “sitting on the fence” jokes and call you Master of the Obvious.

Obviously, in case you missed it, my viewpoint is that people should stand up for things they believe in, assuming it falls within legality. On the other side we have tons of people saying the guy “deserves” to be punished for what might in fact be perfectly legal behavior.

Somehow, the later viewpoint seems a bit undemocratic and inappropriate.

What other viewpoints do you think I’ve been trying to argue? Seriously.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
And even if your premise of “all stores do it” was true, you’d still have two possibilities:

1. Shop online. I hardly think anyone is going to have a clerk drive to your home and ask for a printout of your transaction.

2. See the manager before you make any purchase and inform him that you’ll refuse the bag and receipt check upon exiting. Tell him that his agreement to those terms is required before you do your shopping. If he refuses, repeat with another store until you find a sympathetic manager who has a soft spot for morons.
   [/quote]

Why should someone have to do this? Purely because it affords a tiny amount of convenience and cost effectiveness to businesses?

See, this is where things get fuzzy. I don’t believe peoples rights (assuming there is a rights issue involved here at all) should be subjugated purely on the concept of improved efficiency.

If the choice was between rights and profits I’d generally force the business world to find another way to solve its problems.

How you can’t figure out which of the above statements reflect my opinion of the matter astounds me. Perhaps you’d prefer me to voice an opinion of the legality of the situation when I don’t know the facts?

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Why should someone have to do this? Purely because it affords a tiny amount of convenience and cost effectiveness to businesses?[/quote]

It’d be interesting to see official statistics on this, but my impression would be that it reduces shoplifting significantly - more than “a tiny amount.” If Costco can justify posting two people full time at the door to check exiting customers (as they do at the one closest to my home) that means that they’re recouping more than their two salaries in estimated losses.

See, this is where things get fuzzy. I don’t believe peoples rights (assuming there is a rights issue involved here at all) should be subjugated purely on the concept of improved efficiency.

The whole process can be seen as assuming by default that you’re dishonest, and some people might find that unpleasant.

The problem is that there is no way of singling out the really dishonest people from the crowd, so that the only workable solution is to check everyone. Or to check no one, but that solution is not cost effective loss-wise.

If the choice was between rights and profits I’d generally force the business world to find another way to solve its problems.

I think that in this case, whatever “rights” issue there may be, there is little enough inconvenience that 99.99% of the population won’t mind it. In other words, it’s an acceptable trade-off.

Consider that if the process was to be outlawed, stores would try to find other means of effecting the same verifications. RFID tags that stay in your products for ever might not be an improvement, privacy-wise, but it surely give the impression of being less invasive.

Personally, I prefer showing my bag at the door and be done with it, rather than live with the possibility of someone taking inventory of my whole house simply by running a RFID scanner on my front porch. I’m weird like that.

How you can’t figure out which of the above statements reflect my opinion of the matter astounds me. Perhaps you’d prefer me to voice an opinion of the legality of the situation when I don’t know the facts?

You’re the one who says the guy is neither in the right or in the wrong. If I pick your position for you, you’ll later accuse me of putting words in your mouth or assigning you a position you don’t hold. I have enough trouble making up my own mind, don’t make me have to figure out yours too.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
No. No. No. You miss the point. He was being a tough guy. A rebel. He was giving all those that are sick and tired of the endless corporate oppression a glimpse of light, a ray of hope. He is the new standard bearer for the right to personal privacy. My God - the slacker should get a fucking medal for his selfless bravery…

Maybe if more rebels would do that there would be less rebels shopping where I do, seeing as how they would probably be banned for life, or so riddled with legal bills they could no longer shop.

I don’t suppose you’ve heard any people suggest admiration for a certain president because he stands firm with respect to acting on his beliefs?

Often, what is admirable, or objectionable, depends on the status of the person who does it.

P.S. If you look above, you’ll see TB talking about the right to “search” even if you were not.[/quote]

I was responding to pookie’s post. I have no fucking idea what Thunder’s post has to do with what I said.

Dude - just step back and take a breath. Better yet, listen to what pookie is very diplomatically trying to tell you. If you need me to translate for you, just let me know.

You equating the actions of a dickhead in a Circuit City to the principles of a President is laughable.

Or are you just trying to harvest all the nuts you can from your tree before the first freeze?

[thunderbolt23]

This discussion of “rights” on this issue has become silly - the only “right” you have is to take your business elsewhere and punish Circuit City for its “oppressive” store policies.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
You’re the one who says the guy is neither in the right or in the wrong. If I pick your position for you, you’ll later accuse me of putting words in your mouth or assigning you a position you don’t hold. I have enough trouble making up my own mind, don’t make me have to figure out yours too.
[/quote]

I’ve said the guy was in the wrong with respect to inflicting his decision on his family. I can’t tell if the whole thing was right or wrong because I have no way to know the full legal situation. I’m obviously in favor of the rule of law.

However, I do fully support people to have their own opinions in what they feel the need to stand up to, at least within the bounds of the law. That’s freedom in action and I wonder why so many people trumpeting the virtues of freedom don’t like it when someone actually chooses to exercise it.