It is, please look through this thread for my posts.
FYI you are on private property. A property owner is allowed to search anything he wants on his property because he can be held legally responsible for anything that happens on his property. Per my security manager we as representatives of the owner appointed to perform security related taskw are allowed for example to perform searches if we feel it is appropriate or needed.
Que?
It wouldn’t be theft. It would be a robbery. Your personal property was taken from you, in a threatening manner that induces fear. Thus, robbery has just occured. Also, jail time isn’t normally a punishment for this. 'Course, this is dependent on circumstance - whether or not armed, dollar amount of property, location, etc… In the case with the store search, jail time is not very likely. Your only legal course of action would be to sue them for the property back, plus any damages that occured, or will occur, as a result of their robbery.
As for some other things…
If there is a sign that states a condition of entry, and you enter, you have just agreed to adhere to those stated condition(s), whether you signed anything or not. So, it does make their searches legal, if such a condition is stated. Now, about the names, addresses, and numbers; if it is your intention to commit larceny, why would you give your real name, real address, and real phone number to the cashier? Have you suddenly become an honest thief?
Wouldn’t it be funny if, whenever guests came over to your home, you searched them as they left? You know, just to make sure they didn’t leave anything behind. 
If they confiscate your merchandise for some reason they will refund you. At this point they have covered your loss of property. I was under the impression that it really wasn’t your stuff until it was off of their property. Maybe Monster104 or Demise can give an answer since my experience is not retail specific.
Kinda like the stores are doing now
Ah, one of our favorite misconceptions.
Citizens arrest does not equal kidnapping.
You are being detained under suspicion of committing a crime, you have not been charged with it. Your phone call to the head office would probably be replied to
“yes sir, we’ll check into that right away”
<click>
911 called for regional manager laughing so hard at CRorex he stopped breathing.
So do we, sometimes enlightening the ignorant about arrest powers is all the fun we get to have. Also your phone call to the police would be redundant, the store would already have called them.
After money has been exchanged for goods, and both parties have agreed to the exchange, and the goods have been taken possesion of, and one even has a receipt, I highly doubt that one party can unilaterally void the sale (such as the store taking it back and refunding your money) just because you are on their property. Lawyers - a little help here? 
A) In case nobody’s figured it out, the only legal knowledge I have is from reading the Wasington State administrative code.
Btw, I never said they put me under citizens arrest, they threatened to detain me. No reason was given, anyhoo it was funny. And my statement about uneducated people is still valid. If they knew what they could legally do I wouldn’t have been able to abuse them.
Its all a mater of perspective.
Also, when I say at least I read the opining post usually implies that I didn’t bother to read what everyone else said and I just wanted to throw out my two cents
According to the operations supervisor at my work, the property inside the bags does indeed belong to you, and cannot be confiscated without reimbursement (And it’s voluntary on your part). However, since you are still on private property, the store is legally allowed to search bags (like noted on the outside and inside of the front doors) as a condition of sale, and as a preventative measure of theft and/or “missallocated product” (The quoted part is his exact words, I just liked how it sounded :D).
Actually, I am saying that, and HEY! I’M NOT A THIEF! I’m certainly not going to go into details here so that I can be subject to uninformed judgements about something ten years past, but my family was homeless for nearly a year when I was ten-eleven. It WAS extremely difficult to find food and shelter. Although we never resorted to stealing, there were times when we just didn’t eat for days. I would have been a lot happier if we had ripped off a grocery store, but my mom was not that sort of person. Had she been, I would not have called her amoral or immoral for putting food in my belly.
Spiritus Mundi, I wonder if your only method of attack is to call people who disagree with you stupid and accuse them of not reading your posts. I have in fact read every post to this thread, and I still disagree with you. I know it must be astounding, but it has been known to happen. Meanwhile, I see you taking my quotes out of context, wrongfully paraphrasing what I typed, and generally being an asshole. If it matters that much to you to be right, then fine and dandy. But I disagree. I think you are being self-righteous and antagonistic to the point of prickishness. That’s called a difference in opinion, and none of your posts have done anything to change my mind.
Of course, since I disagree with you, in your mind I must be too dumb and hypocritical to understand your opinion, which is no doubt “the right one.” I’m curious as to what the Nacho4Sara in your alternate reality is like. I bet she’s an immoral thief right along with Nymaz, right?
I’m not responding anymore to this thread, so you can have your last word and be right. I know it will just make your day.
I haven’t been to Fry’s or Costco, but I have been to Target. At my local Target, there aren’t any security people (at least, none that I saw). But there are more security cameras than I have ever seen in one place before. And every camera goes to a TV, for your viewing pleasure. They might as well put up a sign that says: “Hello shoppers! Or as we like to call them, thieves!”. It’s the worst in the predominantly teen-targeted electronics area. Filled with wonderful CDs, DVDs, video games, and electronic devices. But at BOTH ends of EVERY AISLE there is a security camera. And a TV showing what the camera sees. And a sign stating that YOU ARE BEING MONITORED. They literally must have about 30 cameras there. No exageration. And it is quite a small area, too. It’s like they think nobody has any legitimate reason to be in the electronics area. They must all be there to steal stuff.
At Best Buy, they don’t really have much security other than the occasional camera, and the world’s most active door alarm. I have been to Best Buy about thirty times. EVERY SINGLE TIME the alarm goes off. And it’s not just me. It does it for almost everyone. Sometimes I think that it goes off to signal that nothing is being detected. Of course the employees do not mind. They smile and wave you through. What’s the point of having it if they’re just going to wave you through? It’s very annoying, especially around christmas time. Huge delays.
And one thing I have found to be true at nearly every store: TEENS = THIEVES. In the employee’s minds, at least. They always watch you. They seem to think that no teen would ever actually BUY something in a store. They’re just there to STEAL it. What really freaks them out is when you slowly walk around, staring at items. What do they think we’re going to do? Beam it into our bags?
ugh
Then you haven’t been reading carefully (which is what I actually hypothesized, in case you ever develop a respect for accuracy in reporting.)
Two of these are specific charges. People who lob specific charges and then refuse to substantiate them are cowards of the most despicable sort. If you demonstrate a single instance in which I distorted your words through selective quoting I will apologize sincerely. If you demonstrate a single case where I paraphrased you inaccurately I will apologize sincerely. If you lack the integrity to defend these charges, I will be less than surprised.
You are not a hypocrite because you disagree with me. You are a hypocrite because in the same post you condemn certain behaviors and simultaneously direct them at me.
Dumb? Well, when the hypocrisy is called to your attention not only are you unable to recognize it, you attribute the charge to personal, and petty, disagreement. I wouldn’t call that dumb, though, I would call it defensive and lacking insight.
Ah, the charming fantasy dodge again. How delightfully original.
The Nacho4Sara that I see in this thread is neither immoral nor a thief. Nor does she read carefully or demonstrate honest reflection upon criticsm. She might be a coward, too, but the evidence for that is not yet complete.
You know less than you suspect. Speaking last does not make one right, and you may have the last word anytime you choose to use it for purposes other than launching spurious attacks upon my integrity.
Ending a discussion politely, however abruptly, is a fine thing.
Ending a discussion by calling names and running away is the act of a petulant child.
Ending a discussion by making specific accusations and then hiding behind a supercilious sneer is the act of a coward.
Wanna know why? Care to take a guess?
It’s because TEENS = THE LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THIEVES (At least at my store).
It makes sense to me.
Are you calling me a self-righteous prick?? It wouldn’t be the first time I was called that, just asking for clarification.
[sub]subtlety is lost on me[/sub]
I guess if you have to explain it twice, it wasn’t a good joke.
Yes, spooje, I was calling you a self-rightous prick, but I didn’t mean it [sub]I used a winkie and everything[/sub]. I was mimicing (without sinceer flattery, despite the aphorism) Nacho4Sara’s post which called me a self-righteous prick for, among other things, daring to judge Nymaz based upon the content of his posts.
So much for my plans to quit my day job and hit the comedy club circuit. Mrs Mundi will be so relieved.
Sorry.
:o
Spiritus: Well, are you?
Actually, re the OP and the incidents discussed since, I recently read in a book on the Bill of Rights coauthored by Caroline Kennedy that there was a relatively famous false imprisonment case (see 6th Amendment) involving a 70-year-old customer of the Boston department store Kennedys, Inc., who entered the store and purchased a new blazer, the tailor fitting it to him and marking it for the necessary alterations. In the course of this, the customer removed the ascot he was wearing and placed it in his pocket. After closing the order for the blazer, he proceeded out the door of the store, removing his ascot from his pocket and putting it back on. An employee stopped him and required that he go see the store manager. In the course of climbing the stairs to the manager’s office, the customer had an angina attack.
He sued and was awarded damages for his medical expenses. Though the employee, having reasonable grounds to question whether he was justified in leaving the store with an ascot in his pocket, could have legitimately detained him, he did not identify himself as an employee, and apparently the assumption that he’d stolen the ascot was improper – the chapter in the book does not make this clear – but in any case what happened goes beyond the bounds of what one might reasonably do in such a case. I’d welcome one of our legal eagles locating the case and doing a better write-up.
Anyway, folk, you have rights vis-a-vis the store, and they need to behave very circumspectly in verifying that no shoplifting goes on.
:eek:
I’m not arguing the accuracy of the charge, poly [sub]Well, not that charge[/sub]. I just find humor/irony/hypocrisy in the manner of presentation.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT with intelligence like that the unified feild theory is just a step away!
I stand corrected
As an inventory person I can appreciate the term “misallocated”