[quote]nephorm wrote:
Lixy: French law is not United States law. French jurisprudence is not United States’ jurisprudence. The French constitution is not the US Constitution. I just don’t understand why you keep appealing to European understanding of rights and law.[/quote]
Wait a sec. Are you arguing that the store has every right to demand receipt checking and do a citizens arrest without probable cause and in a discriminate manner?
[quote]lixy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Lixy: French law is not United States law. French jurisprudence is not United States’ jurisprudence. The French constitution is not the US Constitution. I just don’t understand why you keep appealing to European understanding of rights and law.
Wait a sec. Are you arguing that the store has every right to demand receipt checking and do a citizens arrest without probable cause and in a discriminate manner?[/quote]
Where do you get these ridiculous thoughts? I have seen no one advocate any such thing.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Lixy: French law is not United States law. French jurisprudence is not United States’ jurisprudence. The French constitution is not the US Constitution. I just don’t understand why you keep appealing to European understanding of rights and law.
Wait a sec. Are you arguing that the store has every right to demand receipt checking and do a citizens arrest without probable cause and in a discriminate manner?
Where do you get these ridiculous thoughts? I have seen no one advocate any such thing.[/quote]
This is exactly what rainjack is arguing.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Lixy: French law is not United States law. French jurisprudence is not United States’ jurisprudence. The French constitution is not the US Constitution. I just don’t understand why you keep appealing to European understanding of rights and law.
Wait a sec. Are you arguing that the store has every right to demand receipt checking and do a citizens arrest without probable cause and in a discriminate manner?
Where do you get these ridiculous thoughts? I have seen no one advocate any such thing.
This is exactly what rainjack is arguing.
[/quote]
Doesn’t seem that way to me but I will let him speak for himself. He has no problem with that.
I am assuming everybody at least agrees that a store needs probable cause to make a citizens arrest and detain a customer, but I’m sure somebody will surprise me.
From law.com:
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=probable+cause&type=1
probable cause
n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime. While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming “help”), actions “typical” of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt “written across their faces,” are more difficult to categorize. “Probable cause” is often subjective, but if the police officer’s belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure.
I like the last line the best. So how is it okay to search a bag or receipt without permission?
[quote]tedro wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Lixy: French law is not United States law. French jurisprudence is not United States’ jurisprudence. The French constitution is not the US Constitution. I just don’t understand why you keep appealing to European understanding of rights and law.
Wait a sec. Are you arguing that the store has every right to demand receipt checking and do a citizens arrest without probable cause and in a discriminate manner?
Where do you get these ridiculous thoughts? I have seen no one advocate any such thing.
This is exactly what rainjack is arguing.
[/quote]
No - I said that the property owner has the right to do so. In doing so he would not have very many patrons.
You have yet to cite a law that forbids a private property owner from protecting his property up to, and including stolen property.
Show me a fucking law. Just one, that forbids a property owner from asking to see a receipt.
I would also like to see the the specific law that provides a suspected thief a right to privacy.
You have not done it yet, so I am pretty confident you can’t find one. Translation? You are talking out of your uneducated ass.
[quote]lixy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Lixy: French law is not United States law. French jurisprudence is not United States’ jurisprudence. The French constitution is not the US Constitution. I just don’t understand why you keep appealing to European understanding of rights and law.
Wait a sec. Are you arguing that the store has every right to demand receipt checking and do a citizens arrest without probable cause and in a discriminate manner?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure all he is saying is that you can’t take French, or any other Euro-law and have it apply to the U.S. just because YOU think it should apply.
But nice try at putting words in Neph’s mouth.
Can you be more of a fucking idiot?
[quote]tedro wrote:
I am assuming everybody at least agrees that a store needs probable cause to make a citizens arrest and detain a customer, but I’m sure somebody will surprise me.
From law.com:
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=probable+cause&type=1
probable cause
n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime. While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming “help”), actions “typical” of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt “written across their faces,” are more difficult to categorize. “Probable cause” is often subjective, but if the police officer’s belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure.
I like the last line the best. So how is it okay to search a bag or receipt without permission?[/quote]
I think that, “technically”, once a person refuses to show his receipt at the request of the store there is probable cause to hold that person under suspicion of shoplifting until LE arrives.
At some point, the idiot will have to show someone his damn receipt, hopefully while there is a car full of kids watching this in the parking lot, and a house full of out of town family waiting on him to get home.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
No - I said that the property owner has the right to do so. In doing so he would not have very many patrons.
You have yet to cite a law that forbids a private property owner from protecting his property up to, and including stolen property.
Show me a fucking law. Just one, that forbids a property owner from asking to see a receipt.
I would also like to see the the specific law that provides a suspected thief a right to privacy.
You have not done it yet, so I am pretty confident you can’t find one. Translation? You are talking out of your uneducated ass.
[/quote]
Nobody said you can’t ask to see a receipt. Do you really think there is a law that pertains specifically to this? There are laws about shoplifting and laws about a right to privacy. To make an arrest for shoplifting, or to detain someone, there must be probable cause, scroll up a little, I even left a definition for you. Refusing a search is not probable cause, it is expressing ones right to privacy.
An employee can suspect theft all they want, but until they have probable cause there is nothing they can legally do about it, and if they proceed with their suspicions they better be right.
Once a purchase is made, the receipt is the customers property. What happens if I immediately throw the receipt away before reaching the door? Would I have to dig it out of the trash before I was allowed to leave, simply to prove my innocence.
Here’s another link, from the consumerist:
Run your own search. Go to yahoo.com type in “check your receipt” “can a store check my bags” “shoplifting and probable cause” the information is all over the place, we have provided some you just refuse to believe it.
I also never said a property owner doesn’t have the right to defend his property against theft. If they have witnessed a theft, they can detain the theif and make a citizens arrest. They cannot detain everybody that they choose.
Now, I would like you to show me a law that says a store owner can detain customers as they please.
[quote]lixy wrote:
If they got proof that you stole something, they could call the cops and throw the thief in jail for all I care. However, the store cannot on a “hunch”.[/quote]
How can you have proof? Unless you caught the guy on video, the best you’re going to get is a hunch. Shoplifters (professional ones) are good. Often, all you have is a “hunch.”
I worked in retail for quite some time, and if you insist on having irrefutable proof before you act, you’re going to get robbed blind.
So, by your own admission, the stores are better off checking everyone.
Although that doesn’t answer the question of what should they do if someone refuse (and by that fact increases suspicion, if there was a “hunch” to start with.)
Looking in the bag the store provided for you and asking to verify it against the receipt the store also gave you minutes ago is “a search” to you?
Every shoplifter in Europe must be wishing you’ll open a store someday, for a few short days of business before you run out of stock with an oddly empty cash drawer.
That’s the problem here. We don’t know what any of the employees or managers saw, said or thought during the whole affair. We’re only getting one guy’s side of the story.
For all your talk about rights and legal this and legal that, you’re drawing a lot of conclusions based on insufficient evidence.
Maybe the employees had cause to be a lot more suspicious than the guy lets on.
You’re the one who’s making this into a rights violation issue when the store is simply trying to prevent inventory losses that are eventually charged to you, as higher prices. Do you really think that doing those receipt checks are enjoyable for the checkers? Or pleasant to pay for the head office?
I’d be nice if some of the Receipt Avengers had SOLUTIONS for the stores to replace the oppressive receipt check that so threaten their sense of liberty. I’m personally more pissed off by having to pay for stolen merchandise that someone else is enjoying on my, and other honest customers’, dime.
Stores are not putting that process in place to ascertain their property rights over your personal rights; they’re doing it to try and make sure that all the inventory leaving the premise has been paid for. I’m sure they’d abandon the receipt check if they had a better solution.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think that, “technically”, once a person refuses to show his receipt at the request of the store there is probable cause to hold that person under suspicion of shoplifting until LE arrives.
At some point, the idiot will have to show someone his damn receipt, hopefully while there is a car full of kids watching this in the parking lot, and a house full of out of town family waiting on him to get home.
[/quote]
And if I refuse a search I must be hiding drugs, guns or something. Lock me up.
BTW, actually he would never have to show his receipt had he have chosen not to. That’s the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.
[quote]tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I think that, “technically”, once a person refuses to show his receipt at the request of the store there is probable cause to hold that person under suspicion of shoplifting until LE arrives.
At some point, the idiot will have to show someone his damn receipt, hopefully while there is a car full of kids watching this in the parking lot, and a house full of out of town family waiting on him to get home.
And if I refuse a search I must be hiding drugs, guns or something. Lock me up.
BTW, actually he would never have to show his receipt had he have chosen not to. That’s the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.[/quote]
Innocent until proven guilty? You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Maybe I am misunderstanding you but do you have to be proven guilty of a crrime before and investigation can be made? What are you trying to say?
[quote]tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I think that, “technically”, once a person refuses to show his receipt at the request of the store there is probable cause to hold that person under suspicion of shoplifting until LE arrives.
At some point, the idiot will have to show someone his damn receipt, hopefully while there is a car full of kids watching this in the parking lot, and a house full of out of town family waiting on him to get home.
And if I refuse a search I must be hiding drugs, guns or something. Lock me up.
BTW, actually he would never have to show his receipt had he have chosen not to. That’s the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.[/quote]
But the store owner has a right to protect his property - even if it is only a suspicion, and you have an uncooperative dill hole thinking he has rights on private property.
The store owner has every right to detain this suspect until LE arrives. LE will then handle the crime, or non-crime.
You have yet to cite any law that prevents a store owner from detaining a suspected shoplifter. The customer’s refusal should be considered probable cause by any rational thinking person.
It all boils down to this - the store has the right to protect their property. If you do not want to be subject to the exercising of that right - you should find somewhere else to shop.
The employee did absolutely nothing wrong. If you want to say that the new folk hero did nothing wrong, well, that is your choice. But - the Circuit City is in no liable position whatsoever. And the dipshit went from refusing a simple request to having to answer to a cop, and was arrested.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I think that, “technically”, once a person refuses to show his receipt at the request of the store there is probable cause to hold that person under suspicion of shoplifting until LE arrives.
At some point, the idiot will have to show someone his damn receipt, hopefully while there is a car full of kids watching this in the parking lot, and a house full of out of town family waiting on him to get home.
And if I refuse a search I must be hiding drugs, guns or something. Lock me up.
BTW, actually he would never have to show his receipt had he have chosen not to. That’s the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.
Innocent until proven guilty? You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Maybe I am misunderstanding you but do you have to be proven guilty of a crrime before and investigation can be made? What are you trying to say?
[/quote]
No, but there does have to be reasonable suspicion before a search warrant is awarded.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Maybe I am misunderstanding you but do you have to be proven guilty of a crrime before and investigation can be made? What are you trying to say?
[/quote]
He’s like all the rest of the rebel fan club. He is in an untenable position, and is just making shit up.
$25 for a give for my sister
$300 for bail
Making my much younger sibilings cry seeing me in handcuffs…
PRICELESS!
Yeah, that was worth it if you are a f’ing brain donor.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty? You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Maybe I am misunderstanding you but do you have to be proven guilty of a crrime before and investigation can be made? What are you trying to say?
He’s like all the rest of the rebel fan club. He is in an untenable position, and is just making shit up.
[/quote]
You accuse everyone else of making stuff up but you still haven’t shown any resources that say a store has the right to demand a receipt and detain someone. Go ahead and do a search, I’m waiting. If you wish to save face and not respond, I’ll understand.
His hearing is scheduled for September 20th, 2007, stay tuned!
[quote]tedro wrote:
No, but there does have to be reasonable suspicion before a search warrant is awarded.
[/quote]
In case you haven’t been paying attention, refusing to show a receipt should be reasonable suspicion, not by LE, but by the owner of the property.
You are on private property, who do you think gets to make the rules?
If you don’t like the rules, find another place to shop.
[quote]lixy wrote:
… It’s all about probable cause and it’s codified in law books. A hunch isn’t probable cause to check a receipt. If they’re doing it systematically, that’s another story, and the store might get away with it in court. But in this particular right, the customer has every right to decline submitting to a search…
[/quote]
Please cite the code that defines probable cause on private property. I mean it’s there, right? You said it was. Find it and post it.
The customer/suspected thief can refuse to show his receipt all he wants. No one is denying that. But the property owner has the right to protect his property from theft, and a refusal to simply show a receipt could, and should, be construed as probable cause at least up to the point of being suspicion of theft.
After that it is up to LE, but as has been said about a billion times already - the property owner is well within his rights to protect his property.