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

[Bearflag70]

I agree that the kid could have made his point without being an ass by playing dumb. As a matter of law, that is irrelevant. However, he should not show the contents of the bag while explaining his point because that would undercut his point and the merchant might stop listening as soon as he opens the bag.

Further, magellan01 the fact that making a bag check voluntary reduces the effectiveness of the bag check is not sufficient grounds to illegally detain someone. Making strip searches voluntary also reduces the effectiveness of security. Should strip searches be mandatory?

Perhaps you are saying the law should permit merchants to make bag searches mandatory?

[Bearflag70]

@magellan01

Can you also see how a policy of voluntary bag checks might be a waste of time and money?

The merchant can ban people from the store who refuse to comply.

[magellan01]

@Bearflag70

I agree that the kid could have made his point without being an ass by playing dumb. As a matter of law, that is irrelevant. However, he should not show the contents of the bag while explaining his point because that would undercut his point and the merchant might stop listening as soon as he opens the bag.

Further, magellan01 the fact that making a bag check voluntary reduces the effectiveness of the bag check is not sufficient grounds to illegally detain someone. Making strip searches voluntary also reduces the effectiveness of security. Should strip searches be mandatory?

Perhaps you are saying the law should permit merchants to make bag searches mandatory?

I have not said that the kid did anything illegal, only that he acted like an asshole. And I do think that the law shold allow stores to check the bag they gave you as you exit. I foresee signs being put up as you walk into the store advising you of the policy of bag checking and that sign changing the equation when you exit. At which point I will kneel down and thank God for giving us that brave kid who put all those lawyers in motion to figure out what those signs should say.

And can we please stop with the strip searching and cavity searches. We’re talking about opening a bag. No one has proposed that they be allowed to, or want to, search pockets, underwear, trunks or cavities.

[x-ray_vision]

@magellan01

Can you also see how a policy of voluntary bag checks might be a waste of time and money?

Yes, but you’re the one who seems to be placing the blame on those who don’t comply, and not on the fact that the law says it’s voluntary:
(bolding mine)

@magellan01

Look, if checking the bags is voluntary, it undercuts the measure’s effectiveness. In essence, you’re preventing the stores from using a technique they find effective. So, we can just leave your hypothetical about voluntary checks in the policies that do nothing department.

[magellan01]

@Bearflag70

The merchant can ban people from the store who refuse to comply.

What, after they steal something. And how would they ban them effectively? Is every security guard they hire supposed to scrutinize the face of every person who enters the store? Come on…

[magellan01]

@x-ray vision

Yes, but you’re the one who seems to be placing the blame on those who don’t comply, and not on the fact that the law says it’s voluntary:

So? The fact of the matter is that if you CHOOSE to be offended by having your bag checked and force the store to revert to a “voluntary” bag check policy, you have barred them from using a cost-effective methjod to lessen theft. That will raise costs. That’s just the way it is.

[cosmosdan]

@whorfin

First of all, thank you for making this such a fascinating debate; since I think we agree about many points (I’d quibble with you about judges-to me, their JOB is to protect people who are unsympathetic but legally right).

It is their job, but they’re called judges because they make a judgment call based on the specific details of the case when it’s not crystal clear. I’m not so sure this one is clear although it may be to someone with more legal knowledge than I.

Thanks for your kind words {back at ya} and for seriously considering my points. I’ve been in retail a while and I’ve always found the interpersonal dynamics of it pretty interesting.

Your last comment is the one I want to really respond to. I agree that it’s hard to see a direct connection (though I think costco manages it-by being “members only” and having a lot of restrictions, they can cut a lot of costs. Members sign up because of the prices)

It will be interesting to see how retail companies respond in the future. Maybe more membership types are on the way.

Let me explain what I mean by the “store’s half”: it only applies in a specific case.

I’ve snipped for brevity’s sake but I do understand your point. Like you I don’t see anyway this will work so that you or other customers directly see a benefit for stopping at the bag check. I think the benefits will have to be assumed by the customer, such as , helping keep prices lower for longer, convenient locations remaining open, or avoiding less convenient alternatives. I think it will remain voluntary and stores will have to decide if it’s effective or not. IMHO once brazen shoplifters realize they can be polite and non cooperative without any problems it will lose any effectiveness.
Stores will see an increase in shrink and the number of “customers” who say “no thanks.” and keep walking.
Then some other method will be needed and I predict it won’t add convienience to the shopping experience.
But hey! our rights will be intact and we can all write Mr. Righi a big thank you note for pointing out to shoplifters that they don’t have to stop if they don’t want to. {I’m joking}

I think the root of the problem is deeper than that but that’s a whole other issue and different thread.

[x-ray_vision]

@magellan01

So? The fact of the matter is that if you CHOOSE to be offended by having your bag checked and force the store to revert to a “voluntary” bag check policy, you have barred them from using a cost-effective methjod to lessen theft. That will raise costs. That’s just the way it is.

Revert to a “voluntary” bag check policy? That’s all it ever was! And as you have already mentioned, “Can you also see how a policy of voluntary bag checks might be a waste of time and money?”.

[magellan01]

@x-ray vision

Revert to a “voluntary” bag check policy? That’s all it ever was! And as you have already mentioned, “Can you also see how a policy of voluntary bag checks might be a waste of time and money?”.

And your point is…

[Bearflag70]

This started as an effort define the rights and responsibilities of the parties. You don’t like the result, so now you’re asking me to come up with a cost-effective method of stopping employee theft?

Making bag checks mandatory absent a contractual obligation should not be legal, IMHO. Post signs prominently at the entrance and at the registers to create such a contract? Maybe.

State that sales are not final until you get a receipt. Have the cashier issue claim tickets instead of receipts. The receipt prints up at the security desk. The customer must submit to a bag check with a claim ticket before security removes product sensors and issues the receipt at the door.

If the customer refuses the bag check, then no receipt. The customer tries to exit, and the sensors sound the alarm. BOOM! Probable cause. Deep cavity search with anal probe ensues.

[cosmosdan]

@Dinsdale

If the store wants shoppers to voluntarily participate in their theft prevention practicies, they could offer some incentive to the shoppers. One possibility would be to offer a discount on future purchases to anyone who brings in a “checked” receipt from a previous visit.

My bottomline is that folks should be wary about deciding what other folks should or should not consider an intolerable intrusion or inconvenience, or worth taking a stand on. Unless, say, you are willing to let someone else make decisions about your behavior that that party doesn’t think is “all that big of a deal.”

In my view of society, individuals and organizations (both public and private) ought to be permitted to dictate the behavior of others only to the extent that they have been legally given that authority. Anything else depends upon agreement between the parties. Yes, there are countless instances in which the vast majority of folks do not “insist upon their rights” in order to make societal interactions smoother. Also, in countless instances individuals comply with relatively innocuous requests simply because they are not aware that they have the option of refusing. But that should not prevent any individual from deciding in any particular instance that he does not agree to a particular “shortcut” - no matter how appealing the other party’s concerns may be.

I agree with your point here. We had a lady yesterday that returned a guitar because she found a very minor flaw in it. One that neither she or the salesperson had noticed in the store. 100 other customers would have never noticed or noticed and said " no big deal" but the bottom line was she found it and it bothered her so we took it back and worked with her. We didn’t say “Stop being so fussy”

In this case I think the response is if it bothers you let them know and don’t shop there until they change their policy. If the convenient location and prices are worth it then cooperate. The company will decide if the policy is working for their purposes and for the majority of it’s customers. They really can’t please everyone.
If a customer objects to one of our store policies I’ll explain it to them politely and often cut them some slack when they’ve just discovered that policy because of some issue. I don’t expect them to come back and expect me to wave it just for them every time. Once you know the policy and you still decide to shop with us then I expect you to respect those policies not argue with us repeatedly or create some scene.

Of course legal issues are another matter, which is why I predict in time stores will have to take another tact because the shoplifters will realize they don’t really have to stop.

[cosmosdan]

@Bearflag70

A judge should decide the case by applying the law to the facts, not by deciding whether someone is a jerk.

Sure but it isn’t always that cut and dry and I don’t think this case is all that clear. Judges have their own opinions and leanings.

Provided the bag check is politely requested and voluntary, which includes the fact that the bag check will not be enforced should I decline to participate, then I’m usually happy to help out the merchant. However, I can see where some people might not be willing to do so, and that is their right.

It is their right, which is eventually what will render this practice useless IMO.

[x-ray_vision]

@magellan01

And your point is…

Are you kidding? My point is that what I quoted you on made no sense at all!

You said:

Can you also see how a policy of voluntary bag checks might be a waste of time and money?

Yet you think it’s those who refuse the bag check (which they can do because it’s voluntary) that make it a waste of time and money, and not the fact that it’s because the law says it’s voluntary:

(bolding mine)

Look, if checking the bags is voluntary, it undercuts the measure’s effectiveness. In essence, you’re preventing the stores from using a technique they find effective. So, we can just leave your hypothetical about voluntary checks in the policies that do nothing department.

You then go on to say:

So? The fact of the matter is that if you CHOOSE to be offended by having your bag checked and force the store to revert to a “voluntary” bag check policy, you have barred them from using a cost-effective methjod to lessen theft. That will raise costs. That’s just the way it is.

I then pointed out to you that your premise that me refusing a bag check forced the store to revert to a “voluntary” bag check policy is false, because voluntary is all it ever was. None of the fault that the bag check policy is voluntary and as you already said, makes it ‘a waste of time and money’, lays on me. I didn’t make the policy voluntary by refusing; it always was voluntary. They didn’t revert to a “voluntary” bag check policy; it always was voluntary because the law says it is.

Do you get my point now?

[cosmosdan]

@Bearflag70

The merchant can ban people from the store who refuse to comply.

They can, and they can even get restraining orders on chronic shoplifters. It isn’t easy. Telling a customer get out and don’t come back can be satisfying sometimes but it’s a bear to enforce

[magellan01]

@x-ray vision

Do you get my point now?

Sure. I just assumed there was more to it. I was using “revert” to mean: to be reduced to as lower level of effectiveness, turned down a notch. Probably should have used a different word, as we do not disagree on the fact that there never was a policy in place that was more than voluntary.

[cosmosdan]

@Bearflag70

This started as an effort define the rights and responsibilities of the parties. You don’t like the result, so now you’re asking me to come up with a cost-effective method of stopping employee theft?

Making bag checks mandatory absent a contractual obligation should not be legal, IMHO. Post signs prominently at the entrance and at the registers to create such a contract? Maybe.

State that sales are not final until you get a receipt. Have the cashier issue claim tickets instead of receipts. The receipt prints up at the security desk. The customer must submit to a bag check with a claim ticket before security removes product sensors and issues the receipt at the door.

If the customer refuses the bag check, then no receipt. The customer tries to exit, and the sensors sound the alarm. BOOM! Probable cause. Deep cavity search with anal probe ensues.

That’s not too bad actually.

The problem would be the customers looking for a free anal probe purposely violating the program.

Seriously though. Your proposal sounds reasonable. It’s one of the slightly less convenient alternatives to the bag check.

That’s part of my point about the Mr Righi. The same people who complain the loudest about it being a violation of their rights will also loudly complain when a less convenient loss prevention method is put in place.

Imagine the lines on a busy day as security people issue receipts, remove security devices and search offenders. Wheeee, what fun.

[Dinsdale]

@cosmosdan

Imagine the lines on a busy day as security people issue receipts, remove security devices and search offenders. Wheeee, what fun.

I’m still not sure what the security concern is, tho. ISTM that this type of bagcheck is to keep the checkers in line - to make sure they actually rang up what they said they did. Or not checking to see that the product actually matches the pricetag. If I wanted to shoplift by slipping something in my pocket or under my coat, that is a different thing altogether, and is not addressed by the bagcheck. Am I missing something here?

So, if the concern is the employees, then shouldn’t they be the target of any increased security? Perhaps instead of having the security guard at the door, he could be looking over the employees’ shoulder as they rang people up. Or cameras or other electronic measures could be employed. Or improving the store’s hiring/training efforts.

And cos, you keep stressing that this guy “played dumb” instead of reasonably talking to the manager. I’m not sure that is all that relevant. It is nice when people choose not to be jerks, but I have difficulty with people and institutions going too far in enforcing their ideas of what they believe to be jerky behavior.

I am sure I am not the only person who has tried to reasonably talk to a manager and been confronted by nothing other than the brick wall of “That’s our policy.” What if this guy tried to explain his concerns but still refused to let them do the bagcheck, and still was detained. Would this change your view and, if so, why?

[x-ray_vision]

@magellan01

I was using “revert” to mean: to be reduced to as lower level of effectiveness, turned down a notch.

So, you meant to say

“The fact of the matter is that if you CHOOSE to be offended by having your bag checked and force the store to be reduced to as lower level of effectiveness to a “voluntary” bag check policy, you have barred them from using a cost-effective methjod to lessen theft. That will raise costs. That’s just the way it is.”

The level of effectiveness of the policy does not become lowered if I refuse a bag check; the policy is the same regardless. And I haven’t “barred them from using a cost-effective method to lessen theft”, the law has.

[Bearflag70]

With the system I offered, the increased time at the security desk would be offset by the time saved by fact that cashiers will not be the ones removing security tags. Security will take a bit longer, but cashiers will move a bit faster.

Further, you said judges have leanings and this case isn’t that clear. I’m not sure why it isn’t clear. The cops asked him for information and he gave all the information he had to give by law. Seems clear to me. “Asshole” should not enter into the equation.

[whorfin]

@cosmosdan

Sure but it isn’t always that cut and dry and I don’t think this case is all that clear. Judges have their own opinions and leanings.
It is their right, which is eventually what will render this practice useless IMO.

I think in this case, it is pretty cut and dried. There was an undisputed right for him to leave. The store manager is clearly responsible for his actions if they violate the law.

law nerd/ when looking at comparative fault in legal cases, you can’t just look at who caused it… you have to look at whether someone’s improper (usually negligent) act caused it. clearly, if you and I have an auto accident, it wouldn’t have happened if either of us weren’t there. Does that make me 50% responsible?

Now look at the case where my car was parked (legally) and I was a mile away. The presence of my car is still a direct cause of its accident, but all the wrongdoing is on your side. In such a case, why should I be at all responsible for the accident?

/law nerd.

I think we’ve already shown two legal ways it could work:

1. Don’t complete the transaction (and hand over the goods) till the door
2. Offer some bonus (such as a broader right to return the goods) with marked receipts. (note that this remains voluntary–I don’t have to show my receipt, I just forego something by not doing so.

/law nerd (but Not a lawyer).

I think the reduction of effectiveness of the security measure again shows up something I have an issue with.

Surely refusing a bag check makes it less effective. Not giving me a million dollars makes me less wealthy (and giving me a million dollars is a very effective way of making a poor student wealthy). Neither is a reason, on its own, to make you do something to help me achieve either.

I don’t care if the check is a perfect way of avoiding shrinkage. That has nothing to do with the store’s right to make me do something.

The store doesn’t have a right to rely on my co-operation. As seen, there are ways of getting it, both through friendly people volunteering, contract, or inducement.

But this is the point I’m getting at (and to return to where I started, is why the store doesn’t have a chance in court). There is NO level of jerkishness that makes his act legal. The store’s defense simply has no basis in law. The store doesn’t have a right to see his receipt, and hence has no right to detain him if he doesn’t show it.

Without a legal right, no court will rule in your favor. The kid had a legal right to go about his business, which was violated by the store. The store had no legal right to stop him; his behavior isn’t even relevant, as there is NO possible way to argue that his behavior justified the store’s action under the law.

Again, IANAL.