[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
AM IK the only one who thinks that by asking, or requiring, that everyone gets checked that they are NOT assuming you are a criminal when they ask you.
[/quote]
Asking is not offensive. Requiring is.
Suspicious maybe. Probable cause? No. As was discussed earlier, if failure to comply with a voluntary search was probable cause, then that effectively makes every search mandatory.
Don’t know. Good question.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Because the stuff belongs to the customer at that point, duly paid for. No take-backs. Neener neener.
Requesting a bag search is not offensive… not to me anyway. I comply when asked politely. However, the customer in this case, for whatever reason, did not want to comply, as was his right.
[/QUOTE]
He had the legal right, evidently. He also had the right to bhave like an asshole. He exercised both of those rights.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
This is not a defective products case.
[/QUOTE]
No. It is an idiot case. Many of the warnings I alluded to and are claimed to be defective product cases are, in reality, just idiot cases. Or cases in which people hold up there hands and say “I am an asshole”.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
The kid did nothing wrong and the merchant took it too far. The merchant is the asshole.
[/QUOTE]
Evidently, this bears repeating: one need not break a law to announce himself an asshole.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
So you take it out on the person doing his/her job for a few bucks an hour and don’t protest to management or the the head office that actually makes the policies? Brilliant!
[/QUOTE]
Yep, I do. That person doesn’t enforce it with everybody, and therefore I am being targeted because I am young, have a shaven head or whatever their reason for pulling me aside rather than the person before and after me.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
If you find it that offensive, perhaps you should consider simply saying, “No thanks.” Then, walk out the door and be on your merry way, unless of course, the shopkeeper oversteps his lawful bounds and detains you.
Of course, the shopkeeper is entitled to refuse service to you in the future and enforce trespassing laws against you should you unlawfully return.
[/QUOTE]
Thats true. I rarely shop there for the very reason I typically get targeted and if they told me not to come back, big deal. They lose my business, I shop online. Their loss.
And yes, I find it offensive, but I don’t wish them to try and tackle me, if they did, I would have to defend myself and it would turn physical. I would rather make them feel like an ass, or at least be in poor spirits and angry or whatnot the rest of the day.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
AM IK the only one who thinks that by asking, or requiring, that everyone gets checked that they are NOT assuming you are a criminal when they ask you. However, if they selectively asked you then, yes I can see the offense. I don’t know if it rises to the level of probable cause, but it seems to me that not agreeing to show your reciept, when everybody is asked, is actually a bit suspicious.
[/QUOTE]
This is an excellent point. If stores wre to judge who to ask and who not to, you know that will cause MAJOR problems. The young kids with the baggy pants get checked, the guy in the suit and tie get a smile. And that’s before race even comes into the picture.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
The only solution to make everyone happy would be, I guess, for the actual reciept to be printed at the exit. So the cashier gives you a reciept for your actual reciept. My question then is, suppose they did this and when you went to collect your actual reciept they asked to look in your bag before handing it over, would this be acceptable policy?
[/QUOTE]
I think you’d be stuck with the same problem: does the stuff in the bag jive with the stuff on the receipt.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I would also like to add that I spent over twenty years in electronic security. The overwhelming majority of stealing is done by employees. From the checkout lady right up to the CEO. There are more theives in the employ of these people than will ever walk out of their store.
[/QUOTE]
There you go. The stores are conducting bag checks because they cannot control their own employees, not because of some overwhelming assault by hordes of shoplifting customers. Customers who are the stores’ lifeblood.
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Isn’t this circular reasoning though? Isn’t the point of the bag check to make sure that the stuff does, in fact, belong to thecustomer?
[/QUOTE]
Of course that is why the store does it. Just because they can explain themselves doesn’t make it right. You can justify strip searches with the same reasoning. “Sorry, ma’am, just making sure you own all that stuff. Uhyou gotta receipt for that tampon?”
What if Circuit City wanted to see a receipt for the cell phone in your pocket? The one you walked in with. Would that be OK?
Thirty seconds after I exchange money for goods and take possession of them from an agent of the store, I feel no need to prove it to another agent of the store.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
WTF? Is there a conspiracy in this thread to exclude the middle? Give me a fucking break.
[/QUOTE]
Excluded middle? You claimed either A or B. I provided C. No excluded middle. And you still have no cite for B other than your assertion.
Again with the false dichotomy. My inability to offer an alternative solution is no proof that your is the correct one. But what the hell. I’ll do it anyway. Here it is, alluded to upthread. Do a better job of hiring and managing your employees.
Infatuation? What’s this? Hyperbole to buttress a point? My goodness! Such manners.
I was using colorful language to describe the abdication of my rights. Butt you knew that, right?
Wrong again. You are leaving out a couple of important steps. Here is how it went down. Employees demand to search bag. Customer demurs. No assholes her, right? At least as far as you are concerned. Next, employee pursues customer. First asshole move. Then, employee threatens customer with detention. Second asshole move. Then employee lies to customer. Third asshole move. Finally, employees detain customer. Fourth asshole move. Four asshole moves, all by store employees, before the customer dials 911. It’s clear who the assholes are.
Just do whatever anyone else tells you because you don’t want to be an asshole.
You don’t know why the kid decided not to comply with the search. Maybe he was in a hurry to visit his dying grandmother in the hospital whose last wish was to play Grand Theft Auto.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And I never said the kid broke the law. I said the kid was an asshole. Guess you could say he broke the first law of not being considered an asshole: He acted like an asshole.
[/QUOTE]
Honest-to-goodness question here. Why does protecting your personal liberties make you an asshole? Let’s concede that calling the cops is not an issue since the call was placed since the store personnel would not let him leave. A person asks to see my in my bag and sure, I could consent - but if I say, “No thank you.” why am I now a jerk? If your point is that this whole situation could have been avoided by the customer allowing the search, I would remind you that it was the manager that made it into a confrontation.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Of course that is why the store does it. Just because they can explain themselves doesn’t make it right. You can justify strip searches with the same reasoning. “Sorry, ma’am, just making sure you own all that stuff. Uhyou gotta receipt for that tampon?”
What if Circuit City wanted to see a receipt for the cell phone in your pocket? The one you walked in with. Would that be OK?
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm. Well, what if we had a hypothetical “bag” of sorts. And in it would be only those things that we just purchased from the store we are about to exit. Would it be okay to check the items in this hypothetical bag and not, say, the cell phone in your pocket (which is not in a box and has all your info on it), or your underwear or your tampon?
Come to think of it, I propose we use this hypothetical method. I further propose that we call this hypothetical “bag” a “shopping bag”.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
You claimed either A or B. I provided C. No excluded middle. And you still have no cite for B other than your assertion.
[/QUOTE]
What precisely do you want a cite for. I painted a scenario using two extremes, one with Personal Security Consultants and one with the Honor Code. So what specifically do you want from me?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Infatuation? What’s this? Hyperbole to buttress a point? My goodness!
[/QUOTE]
It was brough up twice in short order, when it was completely unnecessary. Maybe it was just a coincidence. Maybe it was kismet and you and SaintCad shold get together for a beer. 
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I was using colorful language to describe the abdication of my rights. Butt you knew that, right?
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine) Dr. Freud asks “Are you sure that slipped out right?” 
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Wrong again. You are leaving out a couple of important steps. Here is how it went down. Employees demand to search bag. Customer demurs. No assholes her, right? At least as far as you are concerned. Next, employee pursues customer. First asshole move. Then, employee threatens customer with detention. Second asshole move. Then employee lies to customer. Third asshole move. Finally, employees detain customer. Fourth asshole move. Four asshole moves, all by store employees, before the customer dials 911. It’s clear who the assholes are.
[/QUOTE]
Here, let me help you:
" Here is how it went down. Employees demand to search bag. Customer REFUSES. FIRST ASSHOLE MOVE…"
[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Honest-to-goodness question here. Why does protecting your personal liberties make you an asshole? Let’s concede that calling the cops is not an issue since the call was placed since the store personnel would not let him leave. A person asks to see my in my bag and sure, I could consent - but if I say, “No thank you.” why am I now a jerk? If your point is that this whole situation could have been avoided by the customer allowing the search, I would remind you that it was the manager that made it into a confrontation.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I think the store has a legitamte interest in checking bags as a policy. And if that is part of their policy, not doing so kind of underminds their security efforts. So I think they were fine in detaining him the way they did. They didn’t grab him. If the law says otherwise, I won’t argue the point. But it started with the kids decision to not comply to an extremely reasonable request.
To answer your question specifically, protecting your civil liberities makes you an asshole when the you weigh the degree to which your civil liberties might suffer against the hassle and hullabaloo you go through to protect every strand of them and the latter is much, much, much bigger than the former. And the hassle and hullabaloo includes the degree to which you waste the time of people like police officers.
Again, just let the guy peek into the bag. I do it. Mostly everyone else does it. Ninety percent of the time with me he just gives a peek. Time of inconvenience: 2-3 seconds. If he actually checks the receipt against the items, time of inconvenience:10-20 seconds.
Geeze, why was it so hard for that black lady to just move to the back of the bus? It’s the polite thing to do, and it only takes a second. What an asshole. It’s so much easier than causing a ruckus and getting the cops involved.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Geeze, why was it so hard for that black lady to just move to the back of the bus? It’s the polite thing to do, and it only takes a second. What an asshole. It’s so much easier than causing a ruckus and getting the cops involved.
[/QUOTE]
If I were black I would be extremely offended that you would attempt to equate what was a symbolic gesture of civil disobedience in order to bring to the fore an issue that was at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of the country’s founding and natural law theory itself with some asshole kid just choosing to be an asshole and incovenience others. In fact, I find it offensive even though I’m not black. Other estimations would be appropriate if this were another forum.
That is all.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I disagree. I think the store has a legitamte interest in checking bags as a policy. And if that is part of their policy, not doing so kind of underminds their security efforts. So I think they were fine in detaining him the way they did. They didn’t grab him. If the law says otherwise, I won’t argue the point. But it started with the kids decision to not comply to an extremely reasonable request.
To answer your question specifically, protecting your civil liberities makes you an asshole when the you weigh the degree to which your civil liberties might suffer against the hassle and hullabaloo you go through to protect every strand of them and the latter is much, much, much bigger than the former. And the hassle and hullabaloo includes the degree to which you waste the time of people like police officers.
Again, just let the guy peek into the bag. I do it. Mostly everyone else does it. Ninety percent of the time with me he just gives a peek. Time of inconvenience: 2-3 seconds. If he actually checks the receipt against the items, time of inconvenience:10-20 seconds.
[/QUOTE]
The store absolutely has a legitimate interest in looking in my bag. That doesn’t make a bit of difference to whether they have a right to compel me to act to further their legitimate interest. I don’t care whether it’s 2-3 seconds or 30 seconds. The store doesn’t have a right to make me give them ANY of my time without a) a right to compel me so to do or b) my agreement.
I have a legitimate interest in earning a million dollars, but that doesn’t mean that I have a right to make Bill Gates give me money. It doesn’t change if I instead make 100,000,000 people each give me a penny. I have no right to the penny or the million dollars, and the store has no right to my time, 2-3 seconds, 30 minutes of detention, or anything else.
Now, maybe if the store paid me… that, in essence, is what Costco does. You make a contract with them when you become a member.. you get the right to shop in their store, not open to the general public, and they get certain rights in return (My money, agreement to certain terms, including the right to check my reciept).
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
He thought he was making? You said you thought he did make his point. I’m not seein’ it.
No one is required to cite the law upon demand, but the manager should? I doubt that when store employees are trained in what they are allowed and not to do, it includes “what the name of the law is”. I see no point that was made.
[/QUOTE]
If you think managers are not trained in what consumer laws are or laws about shoplifting you’re mistaken. I said the manager should be aware of what the law* is*, I didn’t say he should recite it on demand.
You see no point made. Fine. That’s something we agree on. Moving on…
[QUOTE=magellan01]
If I were black I would be extremely offended that you would attempt to equate what was a symbolic gesture of civil disobedience in order to bring to the fore an issue that was at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of the country’s founding and natural law theory itself with some asshole kid just choosing to be an asshole and incovenience others. In fact, I find it offensive even though I’m not black. Other estimations would be appropriate if this were another forum.
That is all.
[/QUOTE]
An unlawful detention (denial of freedom of movement) is a denial of liberty, which is a fundamental right.
Otherwise, I think my analogy went too far and I apologize to all for any offense.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If you think managers are not trained in what consumer laws are or laws about shoplifting you’re mistaken.
[/quote]
You just quoted me on what I said, so you know damn well that’s not what I said at all!
You said:
I still have no idea what point was made because an employee couldn’t cite a law.
No, that’s not what you said, wanna see it again:
Now we can move on.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
To answer your question specifically, protecting your civil liberities makes you an asshole when the you weigh the degree to which your civil liberties might suffer against the hassle and hullabaloo you go through to protect every strand of them and the latter is much, much, much bigger than the former. And the hassle and hullabaloo includes the degree to which you waste the time of people like police officers.
[/QUOTE]
I think I’m missing something here. Customer is walking out with his bag. Checker says, “Can I see inside your bag?” Custome says, “No.” and continues walking.
Any bruhaha, hullabaloo, or police yet? Nope.
Checker gets manager and follows customer into parking lot demanding to see in the bag.
Any bruhaha, hullabaloo, or police yet? Well there is a confrontation, but instigated by the CC staff not the customer.
Checker and manager physically prevent customer from leaving by blocking his car and preventing him from closing his car door.
Any bruhaha, hullabaloo, or police yet? Hell yeah - because they are illegally preventing him from leaving. You wouldn’t call the cops if someone was preventing you from legally leaving the parking lot?
Here’s the real problem with your argument. Your using a “de minimus” argument in which it is perfectly OK for CC to ask for you to sacrifice your personal liberty just a little bit for their convienence. Notice that there is no valid reason (probable cause) or contractual reason (membership agreement) to do so. My questions to you are
At least my position is consistant. If I choose to comply, life is easy for all concerned - but absent probable cause, I reserve the right to say no and life continues. Your position is inconsistant in that a) at some point you need to draw the line and say, “Protecting my rights are worth the trouble I’m causing.” to which someone else can validly say, “Stop being an asshole. Your suffering isn’t nearly the degree of trouble you’re causing. Now open up your trunk and stand aside.”
As I leave the thread, I predict that the Cops and the Big Store will win in court.
It seems blatantly obvious to me that the only reason that they are checking shopping bags at the door is that they do not trust their own people at the registers, and are assuming that the checkout folks are slipping things into the bags without charging for them. After all, if all they are doing is looking in bags, they are missing all the stolen merchandise that is tucked under shirts, in coats, etc. And they aren’t patting people down or looking in purses or doing cavity searches, right? If I pay for my DVD, tuck it into my underwear, and refuse a shopping bag, would they ask me to drop my pants at the door?
What makes the guy at the door more trustworthy than any of the other employees in the store? If he’s the manager, why isn’t he surveiling the folks at the registers? Or better yet, why isn’t that guy running the only cash register, thereby eliminating that particular type of employee theft?
I feel no need to assist the store in their internal security measures; as far as I’m concerned, participation is entirely voluntary.
And if someone is standing between my car and the car door, keeping me from closing it, with another person standing at the front and preventing me from leaving, and they are not calling 911, then you can bet your ass that *I * will.
[QUOTE=SaintCad]
I think I’m missing something here. Customer is walking out with his bag. Checker says, “Can I see inside your bag?” Custome says, “No.” and continues walking.
Any bruhaha, hullabaloo, or police yet? Nope.
Checker gets manager and follows customer into parking lot demanding to see in the bag.
Any bruhaha, hullabaloo, or police yet? Well there is a confrontation, but instigated by the CC staff not the customer.
Checker and manager physically prevent customer from leaving by blocking his car and preventing him from closing his car door.
Any bruhaha, hullabaloo, or police yet? Hell yeah - because they are illegally preventing him from leaving. You wouldn’t call the cops if someone was preventing you from legally leaving the parking lot?
Here’s the real problem with your argument. Your using a “de minimus” argument in which it is perfectly OK for CC to ask for you to sacrifice your personal liberty just a little bit for their convienence. Notice that there is no valid reason (probable cause) or contractual reason (membership agreement) to do so. My questions to you are
At least my position is consistant. If I choose to comply, life is easy for all concerned - but absent probable cause, I reserve the right to say no and life continues. Your position is inconsistant in that a) at some point you need to draw the line and say, “Protecting my rights are worth the trouble I’m causing.” to which someone else can validly say, “Stop being an asshole. Your suffering isn’t nearly the degree of trouble you’re causing. Now open up your trunk and stand aside.”
[/QUOTE]
Although I agree with everything you say, I want to add that you don’t even need to look at liberties to see why this is right.
As has been noted, searching my bag benefits the store. They get to cut employee theft. they don’t need to employ as many security guards.
It harms me. It takes up my time. A small amount, true, but as noted earlier, I don’t have any more right to a million dollars I steal a penny at a time than one that I steal all at once.
It doesn’t benefit me. I already have a receipt showing that the stuff in the bag is my property, properly paid for. I don’t gain anything; no more “evidence” that the stuff is all mine.
Again, there are three reasons why I could let the store see the reciept and search the bag.
Out of the goodness of my heart. Depends on if I feel like it. I don’t.
In an agreement; as above, costco makes one with me to let me buy from their their wholesale store
a) To make an agreement, both sides have to be told. Hence, the need for me to sign an agreement. Generally, you can’t imply that I accept through silence. (hence, a sign on the door proves nothing)
b) agreements are voluntary. I again don’t have to accept if I don’t want to.
c) Without a benefit to ME (not to the store), I’m not going to make such an
agreement. “Generally lower prices” isn’t a direct benefit to me. The store is under no obligation to lower their prices with the money saved. Costco, again, agrees to let me into their special-store-with-lower-prices-and-only-security-on-the-door in return for my agreement. Circut city makes no such promise.
Because the store has a legal right to search my bag absent my consent. EVERY SINGLE statute cited says they can’t do that; if they have probable cause, they can call the police and accuse me of shoplifting, but they can’t compel me to search my bag. (if they accuse me, they can reasonably detain me until the police arrive. However, in the OP, they 1) don’t call the police, 2) don’t have probable cause. Simply refusing to agree to a search isn’t enough for the police to have probable cause, nor is it for the store)
See! No civil rights, but those are all the possible options, and none of them gives the store the ability to search my bag without my permission.
Either I volunteer, or we make an agreement, or the store compels me. I don’t do the first, the store isn’t giving me any reason to do the second, and the third doesn’t seem to be legal.
IANAL.