I honestly don’t think you owe an apology. Magellan’s theory is that it is ok to sacrifice a basic freedom (privacy and unwarranted searches in this case) in order to not inconvienence others. I never got the impression that you were comparing the CC affair to the 100+ year struggle blacks had for civil rights - but you did raise the point that any situation that calls upon somebody to give up a fundamental right in order to satisfy an arbitrary (and illegal) rule must be examined beyond mere “what trouble will this cause?” issues.
In summation: Do Michael Righi and Rosa Parks have the right to protect their freedoms despite inconvienencing others? Of course they do. Are the CC debacle and Montgomery bus boycott comparable? Not even freaking close.
I see quite a few people throwing opinions around on this thread with the INAL tag attached. Since he didn’t explicitly say so, I just wanted to point out that jtagain’s post #148 pretty much is the definitive legal view of this situation.
P.S. Whorfin, I was actually surprised by your INAL in post #300, perhaps a career change is in order.
I can respect his feelings about the bag checkers and I can respect people for standing up to defend their rights. In a world that is often unfair and filled with conflicting attitudes and ideas about what is right, we need to choose how to best spend our time an energy when standing up for our rights. Spend time protesting the patriot act, and illegal wire taps. Work at getting the bastards in the White house the hell outa there. But this?
Now he’s got a website accepting donations for his legal fight over this??? Not time well spent IMO, or the best way to approach this particular issue.
My other point is that in a community , to defend your rights you need to be concerned about the rights and welfare of those you share the community with. That includes the merchants. Fairly often in any threads about unpopular store policies the attitude toward the merchant is “too fucking bad” or “it’s not my problem”
This guy didn’t just protest a policy he didn’t like. He went out of his way to create a confrontation when he had other avenues of protest available. While I can appreciate his willingness to defend his rights I can’t admire the method he chose in this case.
I’d also mention that those of us who choose to cooperate with the merchant are not all blindly or stupidly surrendering our rights like sheep. It can be a conscious choice to cooperate with someone we share our community with.
Well, you finally got it right at the end there. One act was an act of civil disobedience , Parks intentionally broke a law she knew to be the law, in order to make a larger point. She was not attempting to be allowed to ride in that particular seat on that particular bus. She was sacrificing her immediate convenience to make a larger point. That is what an act of civil disobedience is.
This kid did nothing of the sort. If you disagree, please show how he did. This kid simply didn’t want to suffer the “inconvenience” of having the checker check the contents of his bag against the receipt.
To mention Parks and this kid in the same breath shows an extreme lack of understanding of both “kind” and “degree”.
Bearflag did the gentlemanly, or gentlewomanly, thing by apologizing. Not that it was necessary. In fact, much of its significance comes from the fact that it was unnecessary. I appreciate his, or her, doing so.
Here is what Mr Righi claims: “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” Michael Righi responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”
“No Thank you” is a polite response to a rude and unnecessary request.
Circuite city, like most stores, locate their registers by the store exit. They also have RF scanners by the exit door. Barring an actual accusation of theft the store is in no position to excercise their wishes or detain a shopper. They can legally ask for a receipt, fingerprints or a date with Senator Craig but they cannot enforce their request.
Looking at Mr Righi’s site he has posted the law regarding identification (the cite reference is mine): **2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.**
Based on this I would say he has a good case.
I don’t know how Circuit City’s restructuring is doing nationally but in Ohio they’re getting spanked. They’ve already closed at least 5 stores. Chasing customers down to validate their honesty isn’t going to entice people to shop.
Had that been me I would have looked the manager straight in the eye and ask him if he needed to see my receipt. If the answer was yes I would have gone back in the store to the refund counter and completed his request. Nothing would need to be said besides “best of luck”.
This will not only harm the store in question but it has the potential of affecting all of them if a corporate apology isn’t offered.
I agree with most of your sentiment; there is no comparison to parks. You politely asked if there’s any disagreement, however, and I hope to offer it in the same spirit.
There’s another reason civil disobedience isn’t relevant; as inconvenient as the kid’s action was, I still don’t see how he broke any law/violated any legal duty; there’s no civil disobedience here at all. The only person the kid didn’t obey was someone who he had no duty to obey.
I don’t know about Circuit City but I made my last purchase at a CompUSA years ago when I returned an item and was charged a re-stocking fee. If that’s the case at Circuit City, taking the item back to the refund counter as a form of protest would cost you money.
They’re gonna’ fuck you one way or the other. Don’t do business with places like this.
I prefer the alternative that others have mentioned- Don’t allow them to fuck you and refuse what the law has deemed a voluntary search. I see that as a better alternative than to not give a store in your community whose goods you desire your business.
I’ve had them pull that stunt with un-opened (as in, still shrink-wrapped merchandise). After I cheerfully tell them I’ll dispute the entire bill with my credit card company, magically the restocking fee vanishes.
That’s the crux of it. It simply is not an asshole move to refuse to submit to a search of your person or personal possessions. It simply isn’t. As has been demonstrated ad infinitum, absent probable cause, the request itself is out of bounds. Everything else flows from that.
Oops! Perhaps you missed the buttress that flew out? And the floating esophagus as well?
It’s not really that the request is out of bounds… the store is allowed to request you do anything. I don’t think it can be out of bounds to ask anything; if they want to ask you to hop out the exit on one foot, they can. They just can’t **make **you hop or show your reciept, or allow them to search you.(and even with probable cause, they can’t search you… they can hold you till the cops come).
Most of your post goes to whether they did the wise thing from a corporate standpoint. That’s another discussion entirely. The only thiing I can see here that I disagree with is the characterization of of the request as “rude an unnecessary”. While we can quible over the latter, the former doesn’t come near my definition of rude.
For what it’s worth, I would respect the way you wold handle it. You makethe point and do so in a way that inconveneinces no one except yourself.
I saw several people earlier in the thread make similar statements to this.
I don’t see how you can possibly think that “the store will win in court” when there were no charges laid with respect to the store. He wasn’t charged with shoplifting. He wasn’t charged with refusing to be searched (because there is no such law). The only thing he was charged with was not providing his drivers license to the cop (even though he did give his name, and cites earlier in the thread say that should have been sufficient).
The point you are so deftly missing repeatedly is that once the item in the bag has been paid for, the customer has absolutely no obligation to the store whatsoever. It is the store’s obligation (perhaps legal, perhaps not, IANAL) to inform the customer before the transaction that physical search of some of their personal belongings is a condition of the purchase contract.
If I never see him checking bags while I am there, why should they consider it reasonable that I know why he’s there? You seem to be operating under the assumption that it is reasonable for the store to station someone at the exit to demand examination of the departing customer’s personal property. Why is this reasonable?
Why would I? The owner of a store full of expensive electronics would be a fool not to think that somebody might try to steal something. I only take it personally when they’ve decided that somebody is me. Especially without cause.
Me personally? Why would I assume the store suspects me? That they suspect something may happen and take reasonable precautions, sure, I expect that. But to expect them to waylay me for no reason? Shit, the government I vote for can’t even do that without a judge agreeing with the guy who wants to that there’s a reason for it. Why should I expect any less of a standard from a store that relies on people’s good will toward it to survive?
