Man arrested in connection with ignoring "bag checker" at Circuit City

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=Monty]
I suggested earlier that you attempt to be polite in your comments to me. This is my last comment to you in this thread. Any further insults from you to me will be dealt with in the Pit.

So, you’re saying what I’m–and the feds are–saying: The number is used for identification, not the card.

In case you’ve missed it, the social security card does not have a picture. It’s kind of hard for a copper to look at your mug and then compare it to the non-existant picture on the social security card, don’t you think? Regardless of what “a lot of places” do, the simple fact of the matter is the official stance of the government issuing the thing is that the social security card is not an identification card.
[/QUOTE]

I am not insulting you at all. My apologies if you take it that way. You’re just wrong. The Cecil Adams article I quoted admits that the card is used for identification. That’s the bottom line. You’re wrong. Not an insult at all. If you don’t like it, take it up with Cecil, not me, I’m just going on what I’m told by a trusted source.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I read them each. In each case, the cases were before the courts and the courts decided.
[/quote]

No. Lets look at the first link:

Three men wounded by John W. Hinckley Jr. in his attempt to kill President Reagan cannot sue a psychiatrist for $14 million in damages, a Federal appeals court has ruled.

The court ruled that Hinckley can not sue!

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Each defendat got sued.
[/quote]

I’ll repeat, The court ruled that Hinckley can not sue! The psychiatrist in question did not get sued. That doesn’t mean that the psychiatrist won the suit, that means that he couldn’t be sued.

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The courts ruled that the cases would not be heard but in any case, they were sued.
[/quote]

Uh huh.

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
No one can stop you from going down to the clerks office and filing a complaint against anyone you chose.
[/quote]

Nice try.

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
It may not be successful, a judge may strike it down, but you still sued.
[/quote]

Wrong. If the case is found to not warrant a suit being filed, the suit will not be filed and you sued no one.

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Show me a clerk that refuses to commence an action, then you got a case.
[/QUOTE]

A clerk allowing you to submit paperwork is not defined as suing someone. Read the links I provided again if you disagree.

[Iknewit]

There is a thing called “commencement of action”. That is the commencement of a lawsuit. It happens when the complaint is filed withe the clerk. If any of the cases cited had not sued to begim with, the cases would never have been in court to begin with. What, do you think someone filed a “permission to sue” request ? They sued, and were denied.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
There is a thing called “commencement of action”. That is the commencement of a lawsuit. It happens when the complaint is filed withe the clerk. If any of the cases cited had not sued to begim with, the cases would never have been in court to begin with.
[/quote]

The cases were in court for panels to decide if there would be someone getting sued! Many of the articles in the Google searches I provided specifically say that so and so can not be sued! The one below says “federal law gives immunity from libel suits”. That certainly sounds like someone can’t be sued to me! And that doesn’t mean that someone has to be psychic and know what’s on the paper work you’re submitting. :rolleyes:

Let’s look at this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817955/

Calif. court says bloggers can’t be sued
State’s Supreme Court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that bloggers and participants in Internet bulletin board groups cannot be sued for posting defamatory statements made by others.

In deciding a case closely watched by free speech groups, the court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits not only to Internet service providers, like AOL, but also to bloggers and other users of their services.

“Subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech,” today’s unanimous ruling said.

The cases “did not go to court” as you put it. Unless you mean that it was decided in a court house if someone would be getting sued- but that’s not the same as someone getting sued, is it?

Now are you going to reply to my objections to your post about the unconstitutionality of random searches? I noticed you glossed right over it and replied to Monty.

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
The cases were in court for panels to decide if there would be someone getting sued! Many of the articles in the Google searches I provided specifically say that so and so can not be sued! The one below says “federal law gives immunity from libel suits”. That certainly sounds like someone can’t be sued to me! And that doesn’t mean that someone has to be psychic and know what’s on the paper work you’re submitting. :rolleyes:

Let’s look at this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817955/

The cases “did not go to court” as you put it. Unless you mean that it was decided in a court house if someone would be getting sued- but that’s not the same as someone getting sued, is it?

Now are you going to reply to my objections to your post about the unconstitutionality of random searches? I noticed you glossed right over it and replied to Monty.
[/QUOTE]

The cases were settled in lower courts and then over turned on appeal. They commenced, heard and dismissed or over turned. They sued and failed. Period.

As far as the probable cause and check points, random check points are unconstitutional.

“The judge ruled that the checkpoints, which took place in July of last year, were unconstitutional because they were set up without a required seven-day advance notice. These requirements are necessary for any drunk driving or DUI checkpoint in New Hampshire, and also in several other states around the country as well.”
The SCOTUS does allow for DUI check points but with the directive of filing notice of, location of, and purpose of such check points. Police are not allowed by law to randomly set up check points at any given place or time. They have to announce the check points time, location and purpose to the public. That is not random.

[Contrapuntal]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
No you shouldn’t be forcibly restrained and if we want to get technical they didn’t forcibly restrain him.
[/QUOTE]
They unlawfully restrained him.

All I’m suggesting is that we at least understand why the stores have these measures in place and instead of staging some bullshit protest to make our point simply communicate with management and home office.

Refusing to show a receipt is not “staging a bullshit protest.” They made a request, he declined. Declining is communicating with the management. They had no right to take it any further. Any “bullshit” that subsequently occurred is the fault of the store.

If you want to not shop there that’s your choice. If you’d rather show your receipt than drive to a less convenient location then show it and stop making a big issue out of a minor thing.

If it is such a minor thing, why didn’t they just let him pass? Fell free to cede your rights away; but leave me be to defend mine.

I think he made his point when he asked them to cite the law that allowed them to search his bag and they couldn’t.

That is when they should have backed off. They were in the wrong.

He could have explained his objection to them. He could have shown them the bag at that point, gotten their names and called the home office to lodge a complaint.

Why should he? Why let people push you around?

Were they technically incorrect? It sure looks like it. Yet he was the one that carried it too far and blew a small issue out of proportion IMHO.

I am baffled by the continuation of this idea. They carried it too far, not him. *They *blew it out of proportion. *They *unlawfully restrained him. They lied about their justification for doing so. He did nothing wrong! He broke no laws! How can you place the blame on him? All they had to do was say “Thanks anyway” when he declined and none of this would have happened. It’s on them, not him.

Rights work both ways and that’s where the mutual consideration comes in.

I have no idea what this means. I have the right to vote. What mutual consideration, in the form of the right of another, is required of me?

The customer has certain rights and the merchant has certain rights to protect themselves from loss.

The merchant does not have the right to search and detain without probable cause. The merchant does not have the right to break the law.

So rather than get all huffy there’s communication available.

He “didn’t get all huffy.” He refused to comply with an unreasonable request.

If a store employee treats me with courtesy I will likely cooperate, out of consideration.

Bully for you. Feel free to cede all of your rights that you want. You have no standing to do it for anyone else, however.

If I feel their policies are unfair or just not customer friendly, I’ll tell them so. If they change em fine. If they don’t it’s up to me to decide if I want to shop there or not.

Again, if you don’t mind getting pushed around, have at it.

Sometimes a new employee has accidentally puts the wrong item in the bag or some item was left out that is on the receipt. Then the customer is grateful it was discovered before they got home.

If the security guy has probable cause to believe that that has occurred, he may have a case. Although, I am unsure how the wrong item can be put in the bag unless the customer brings it to the check out. Do you have any cites for how often such a thing occurs? Because sometimes frogs jump up out of a pond and piss on your shoes, but that’s no reason to quit fishing.

It often a matter of what works best for the most number of customers and the store.

What would absolutely work best for the most number of customers and the store is for the employees not to restraint the ones who do not consent to a search. That way, everyone is happy.

[QUOTE=askeptic]
Just wait till someone posts about a Drunk Driving arrest that occured at a check point. You know the kind the police frequently set up and stop every driver ask them a few questions and sniff for the odor of alcohol?They are definitely state actors. They definitely do not have probable cause. The majority of the arrests are fine. And the ones that are not are not dismissed simply because there was a lack of probable cause.

As long as the store can articulate that shoplifting is fairly common, that they have frequently found shoplifted items in store bags and that checking the receipts is a reasonable and unintrusive method then I doubt any jury is going to hold them liable. Granted a few misguided psuedo civil libertarians may want to stick it to the man, but I doubt a majority of jurors would buy this silly argument. And if they did it would most likeley be dismissed in a judgement notwithstanding the verdict.
[/QUOTE]
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Driver’s licenses are issued by the state. Drivers use state roads. If the state owned Circuit City, issued licenses for the privilege of shopping there, and codified a set of laws regulating such shopping, your comparison would be valid. As it is, you have no point.

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
They unlawfully restrained him.
[/QUOTE]

The CC employees also unlawfully restrained another individual (the driver of the vehicle) who had nothing whatsoever to do with their store.

[askeptic]

[QUOTE=askeptic]
Just wait till someone posts about a Drunk Driving arrest that occured at a check point. You know the kind the police frequently set up and stop every driver ask them a few questions and sniff for the odor of alcohol?They are definitely state actors. They definitely do not have probable cause. The majority of the arrests are fine. And the ones that are not are not dismissed simply because there was a lack of probable cause.

As long as the store can articulate that shoplifting is fairly common, that they have frequently found shoplifted items in store bags and that checking the receipts is a reasonable and unintrusive method then I doubt any jury is going to hold them liable. Granted a few misguided psuedo civil libertarians may want to stick it to the man, but I doubt a majority of jurors would buy this silly argument. And if they did it would most likeley be dismissed in a judgement notwithstanding the verdict.
[/QUOTE]

Iknewit, please point to the word “random” in my post. If you can’t then please stop referring to random checkpoints. kthxby

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=askeptic]
Iknewit, please point to the word “random” in my post. If you can’t then please stop referring to random checkpoints. kthxby
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see the word random.
The conversation moved beyond your post. Sorry, but I reserve the right to use the word random.

[askeptic]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I don’t see the word random.
The conversation moved beyond your post. Sorry, but I reserve the right to use the word random.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, well if you like arguing against things nobody said then carry on.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The cases were settled in lower courts and then over turned on appeal. They commenced, heard and dismissed or over turned. They sued and failed. Period.
[/quote]

No one was sued! The articles I submitted all specifically said that they couldn’t be sued.

**State’s Supreme Court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits **

That means a certain someone can not be sued!

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The SCOTUS does allow for DUI check points but with the directive of filing notice of, location of, and purpose of such check points. Police are not allowed by law to randomly set up check points at any given place or time. They have to announce the check points time, location and purpose to the public. That is not random.
[/QUOTE]

Oh brother. Most people define a random check point as one where people are randomly stopped. You said:

Random check points are illegal due to lack of probable cause.

How is probable cause any different if the checkpoint time and location was properly filed?

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
No one was sued! The articles I submitted all specifically said that they couldn’t be sued.

**State’s Supreme Court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits **

That means a certain someone can not be sued!

Oh brother. Most people define a random check point as one where people are randomly stopped. You said:
How is probable cause any different if the checkpoint time and location was properly filed?
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. The suits are dismissed on particular grounds. To infer that a blogger can’t be sued is silly. If he owes me money, he can be sued. Even the parties in the previous suits can sue again. Immunity is in no way infinite. It is challengable. They can be sued again by the same people on the same grounds. Go file the suit with the clerk and the action is commenced. The defense files a motion to dismiss citing the previous ruling and the judge either hears the case or not. The lawsuit is none the less a lawsuit.

At check points, generally, everyone is stopped. That’s about as far from random as I can imagine. It is in fact, general, not random.

The police must state what they are looking for at a properly conducted check point. At a drivers license check point, they have no right to search for stolen goods, only the right to check license. If no other probable cause is evident, they have no grounds to search further than a license.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
He called the police because he was being detained by force. His point is valid, IMHO, even important, in that there is no reason to treat random people as potential criminals. That is a problem for me no matter how trivial you deem it to be.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not so sure he was detained by force. They never laid hands on him and the way in which the employees handled it makes me suspect that they knew where the lines were drawn. If he had simply told them he was leaving if they weren’t going to call the police and maybe added, “if you detain me any longer your company will have a law suit to deal with”

His point may be a valid one but I take exception to the way he chose to make it. If you want to look at the bag checker as being accused of shoplifting that’s your choice and it’s your brain and your feelings looking at it that way. Lots of people don’t see it that way. I see it as the store asking folks to please help keep theft down by cooperating.

I’ve already said I think the employees were a little overzealous, but a confrontation takes more than one side to escalate. I think MR Assert My Rights was just as guilty of bad choices that escalated the situation. Evidently he refused to show his merchandise until the cop got there. That , IMHO, is just being a self righteous jerk and using 911 to be one.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
He called the police because he was being detained by force. His point is valid, IMHO, even important, in that there is no reason to treat random people as potential criminals. That is a problem for me no matter how trivial you deem it to be.
[/QUOTE]

sorry, double posted!! :o

[Richard_Parker]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
No one was sued! The articles I submitted all specifically said that they couldn’t be sued.
[/QUOTE]

I suspect that you’re using a different definition of sue from the rest of us. By “sue,” most people mean to commence an action against a particular party. When courts speak of parties being immune to suit, they mean that the action can be dismissed on that basis–not that the action cannot be filed at all.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
Absolutely not. The CC employees stood in between him and the open door of his vehicle, in a matter to physically block him from a path he was rightfully entitled to take.

That is “deprivation of liberty” at least, or “kidnapping” at the worst, or “illegal detention” in the middle. The customer could have, IMHO, thrown a punch at the CC employee and been legal.

[/QUOTE]
That’s not what happened. Read it again.

I reopened the door to talk with Joe and at this point Joe positioned his body between the open car door and myself. (I was still seated in the Buick.

you might also note that he was in the car with the door closed and could have just pulled away but he stopped not to be polite, but to fuck with these employees trying to do their job , thinking he had some point to make.

I closed the door and as my father was just about to pull away the manager, Joe, yelled for us to stop. Of course I knew what this was about, but I played dumb and pretended that I didn’t know what the problem was. I wanted to give Joe the chance to explain what all the fuss was for.

he adds this

I twice asked Joe to back away from the car so that I could close the door. Joe refused. On three occasions I tried to pull the door closed but Joe pushed back on the door with his hip and hands. I then gave Joe three options:

Now* maybe* the manager blocking him from closing the door is an issue, I don’t know. This is also where I think the guy went to far to make his point. Tell the manager there is no law if that’s what you believe, show him your bag anyway to prove you’re not a shoplifter, get his name and inform him that you’ll be writing the district manager and home office to complain about their horrible policy. CC even has a 800 number for customer complaints and they do follow up. It was in choosing to make the next steps, still refuse to cooperate and call the cops to prove you’re right, that this guy went from "customer with a valid complaint, to jackass IMHO.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Bullshit. The suits are dismissed on particular grounds. To infer that a blogger can’t be sued is silly. If he owes me money, he can be sued.
[/quote]

Are you capable of honest debate? The article I linked to did not claim that if you are a blogger you are immune from being sued for anything. It claimed :

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that bloggers and participants in Internet bulletin board groups cannot be sued for posting defamatory statements made by others.

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The defense files a motion to dismiss citing the previous ruling and the judge either hears the case or not. The lawsuit is none the less a lawsuit.
[/quote]

Someone either gets sued or not.

** Panel Rules Hinckley Victims Cannot Sue His Psychiatrist**

The psychiatrist was not sued because he couldn’t be sued. What paperwork was filed is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
At check points, generally, everyone is stopped. That’s about as far from random as I can imagine. It is in fact, general, not random.
[/quote]

Not where I’m from. Drive through a DUI checkpoint in Jersey or Brooklyn and see if it would even be possible for officers to stop every car. They randomly stop some cars and keep traffic moving. Are you claiming that they must stop every car?

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The police must state what they are looking for at a properly conducted check point. At a drivers license check point, they have no right to search for stolen goods, only the right to check license. If no other probable cause is evident, they have no grounds to search further than a license.
[/QUOTE]

Was that supposed to be an answer to my question? You said:

Random check points are illegal due to lack of probable cause.

I asked:

How is probable cause any different if the checkpoint time and location was properly filed?

You didn’t answer my question.

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
. I see it as the store asking folks to please help keep theft down by cooperating.

[/QUOTE]

They did ask him to help and he declined, saying “no thanks”. They then proceeded to insist, not ask.

[Iknewit]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Are you capable of honest debate? The article I linked to did not claim that if you are a blogger you are immune from being sued for anything. It claimed :

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that bloggers and participants in Internet bulletin board groups cannot be sued for posting defamatory statements made by others.

Someone either gets sued or not.

[/QUOTE]

Ask Richard Parker. He knows exactly what I’m talking about. Anyone, anytime can sue anybody they want. There is no promise that a judge won’t throw the suit out and say it has no merit or the defendant is immune. None the less, there is no effect on your ability to bring suit against anyone. You’re trapped by semantics.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
I suspect that you’re using a different definition of sue from the rest of us. By “sue,” most people mean to commence an action against a particular party. When courts speak of parties being immune to suit, they mean that the action can be dismissed on that basis–not that the action cannot be filed at all.
[/QUOTE]

Richard, you wrote, "Each of those google hits is using the phrase “cannot sue” as shorthand for “cannot successfully sue.”

I haven’t found one of the hits that were shorthand for “cannot successfully sue.”

They meant that someone could “not be sued”. You honestly didn’t think I meant that paperwork couldn’t be handed to someone, as if it would explode, did you?

**Calif. court says bloggers can’t be sued
State’s Supreme Court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits **

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that bloggers and participants in Internet bulletin board groups cannot be sued for posting defamatory statements made by others.

In deciding a case closely watched by free speech groups, the court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits not only to Internet service providers, like AOL, but also to bloggers and other users of their services.

“Subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech,” today’s unanimous ruling said.

That is an article among many hits from my Google search that specifically says certain people can’t be sued in certain circumstances.