[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Perhaps instead of having the security guard at the door, he could be looking over the employees’ shoulder as they rang people up.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. Maybe the store can employ baggers, like a supermarket, who are also charged with overseeing security during the cashier transaction. Make a rule that cashiers are not allowed to remove security tags, bag items, or hand purchase receipts directly to customers.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
And how will this be a worthwhile cost to the store? Will even the dumbest of thieves want to have their bags containing stolen merchandise checked because there’s a bonus involved?
The voluntary policy most likely works for the following reasons:
a) It deters theft because most people aren’t aware it’s voluntary
b) Even thieves that are aware it’s voluntary don’t want to risk a Michael Righi type incident
c) There is increased security at the door
By advertising a bonus for getting your bag/receipt checked, it becomes obvious that it’s a voluntary check and you won’t be followed into the parking lot by security. That will cause many that won’t want that inconvenience for their paper clips purchase to walk right by security and the thieves will be right behind them through the exit door.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
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.
[/QUOTE]
There are possible ways to argue that his behavior justified the store’s action under the law. The law in Ohio states:
…has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken…
We don’t know what a judge is going to consider what “probable cause to believe” entails and we haven’t heard the story from the side of the employees (or the story they may have not yet come up with).
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
There are possible ways to argue that his behavior justified the store’s action under the law. The law in Ohio states:
…has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken…
We don’t know what a judge is going to consider what “probable cause to believe” entails and we haven’t heard the story from the side of the employees (or the story they may have not yet come up with).
[/QUOTE]
AFAIK, the only facts we have that go to probable cause is the kid’s failure to submit to the bag check request, which does not amount to probable cause.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
There are possible ways to argue that his behavior justified the store’s action under the law. The law in Ohio states:
…has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken…
We don’t know what a judge is going to consider what “probable cause to believe” entails and we haven’t heard the story from the side of the employees (or the story they may have not yet come up with).
[/QUOTE]
You’re right that we haven’t heard the store’s side.
But that’s pure speculation. No one here questions the idea that if the store employees were to say, “I saw the man slipping items into his pockets, and then moving the items from his pocket to the bag after he left the register,” that probable cause would by that testimony be established.
The question can only be: right now, with the facts now in evidence, assuming the customer’s story to be accurate and complete and assuming that the store employees would testify in conformity therewith, did the store have probable cause to believe that any merchandise had been unlawfully taken?
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
AFAIK, the only facts we have that go to probable cause is the kid’s failure to submit to the bag check request, which does not amount to probable cause.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s what I implied- that that’s all we know as we’ve only heard one side. I’m willing to bet if we are able to hear the facts of this case as it develops, we’re going to hear about some other behavior that may give a judge/jury reason to believe that the employee(s) had probable cause to believe something was stolen. It may be something so slight as the tone in his voice when he said, “no thank you”, the look in his eyes, his hurried pace and the position of his other arm. Again, the Ohio law states, "…has probable cause to believe…", and by that alone, I wouldn’t be surprised if a judge/jury sides with Circuit City if it gets to the point of a court case.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Well, that’s what I implied- that that’s all we know as we’ve only heard one side. I’m willing to bet if we are able to hear the facts of this case as it develops, we’re going to hear about some other behavior that may give a judge/jury reason to believe that the employee(s) had probable cause to believe something was stolen. It may be something so slight as the tone in his voice when he said, “no thank you”, the look in his eyes, his hurried pace and the position of his other arm. Again, the Ohio law states, "…has probable cause to believe…", and by that alone, I wouldn’t be surprised if a judge/jury sides with Circuit City if it gets to the point of a court case.
[/QUOTE]
That very well could be. It seems the best story for CC is that the manager thought he saw the cashier mishandle the transaction based upon specific facts.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
And how will this be a worthwhile cost to the store? Will even the dumbest of thieves want to have their bags containing stolen merchandise checked because there’s a bonus involved?
The voluntary policy most likely works for the following reasons:
a) It deters theft because most people aren’t aware it’s voluntary
b) Even thieves that are aware it’s voluntary don’t want to risk a Michael Righi type incident
c) There is increased security at the door
By advertising a bonus for getting your bag/receipt checked, it becomes obvious that it’s a voluntary check and you won’t be followed into the parking lot by security. That will cause many that won’t want that inconvenience for their paper clips purchase to walk right by security and the thieves will be right behind them through the exit door.
[/QUOTE]
I hope you will let me respond to each of these in turn.
First of all, remember that this policy is as much to deter misconduct of sales clerks as customers. So maybe a clerk ringing up a $100 camera for $1 and pocketing $99 would be caught, because the customer isn’t a part of the scheme.
Secondly, (I thought) that many thieves steal things to return them (as they really want money); I also believe that most of your ability to return non-defective goods is due to store policy, not law.
Hence, if a store only accepted returns if the reciept was checked, it would discourage people stealing the things (say taking three and buying one, so they had a reciept) only to return them and get money
Finally, however, I don’t think your points are particularly convincing.
a) means that the store relies on deceit to make this policy work. It might be true that this is why it works, but it does nothing to give the store a legal right to the checks. It’s simply not a strong legal argument to rely on fraud.
b) Again, if the store has no right to stop someone, THEY ARE IN THE WRONG IF THEY DO. A store will probably be liable to a shoplifter if they beat them up with no cause (even if the guy was in fact guilty of shoplifting).
c) doesn’t rely at all on the security being there for a reciept check. They might even be more effective if they weren’t spending their time checking receipts, but instead watching people. This point is true, but has nothing at all to do with the receipt check. It applies if the security is there to greet people, or manage carts, or just to, well, provide security.
and my response: the bonus might be a special membership/discount card. Say, pay 95% of price if you agree to have your reciept checked (adjust the level to the average amount of money the store saves through such checks, per shopper).
Finally, as noted, I’m trying to show how the store could legitimate the checks (and perhaps encourage people to use them). It’s not my problem if the checks, if done consistently with the law, aren’t effective. That doesn’t mean the store has a right to break the law to make them effective.
If you disagree, and think that making something more effective is a justification to make people help do it, please send me one million dollars, care of cecil adams. It’s a very effective way to make me rich. (and don’t argue that the store isn’t benefiting in the same way in effect, make the store better off by lowering its costs. as noted, they have NO DUTY to help consumers with the money they save from receipt checks.)
If what they need to do to make the checks effective also makes them useless/uneconomical, they shouldn’t be doing them. No different than any other security-if you need twelve guards to stop $10/day of shoplifting, it’s more efficient to lose $10/day than pay (say) $2000/day for the guards.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
There are possible ways to argue that his behavior justified the store’s action under the law. The law in Ohio states:
…has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken…
We don’t know what a judge is going to consider what “probable cause to believe” entails and we haven’t heard the story from the side of the employees (or the story they may have not yet come up with).
[/QUOTE]
Again, here, I have two problems.
First of all, as seen with my bolding in your quote, if the employees need to “come up with a story” to have a case, well, that’s called perjury. It’s a crime, and saying that that’s necessary to win their case makes my point that they have no legal case.
Secondly, as noted endlessly above, refusing to do something you don’t have to do is NOT and NEVER IS probable cause. other, more expert posters have listed what a store detective does have to see to have probable cause to suspect shoplifting. Rigi did not create probable cause by refusing to do something that he had no obligation to do.
If a policeman knocks on your door, asks to search through all your rooms, tear out your walls, dig through your foundation to see if you’ve hidden any dead bodies there,* and you refuse, that doesn’t give the cop the justification to then forcibly search your house.
If the policeman has other reasons to suspect you, he can get a warrant. But it’s simply not true that he has probable cause (note, the same standard), simply because you refuse to voluntarily allow him to search you.
Similarly, if the store had other reasons to suspect Rigi, they’d have probable cause. They don’t then need his consent to detain him till the cops arrive. (and even then, as noted above, they’re still in the wrong. Under the law cited, the store doesn’t appear to have a right to detain him EXCEPT to hold him till the police arrive. the store never called the police–even if they did have probable cause, they weren’t doing what they had a right to do under the law). And that’s why Rigi seems likely to win.
*For the purposes of example. I make no implication that there actually ARE dead bodies in your house.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
You’re right that we haven’t heard the store’s side.
But that’s pure speculation.
[/quote]
Yes, it is. My response was to whorfin’s claim that “there is NO possible way to argue that his behavior justified the store’s action under the law”.
If you mean that that is supposing that everything happened exactly the way Righi described, well, then I still can’t agree with you as Righi didn’t describe every action he took that may be considered suspicious.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
The question can only be: right now, with the facts now in evidence, assuming the customer’s story to be accurate and complete and assuming that the store employees would testify in conformity therewith, did the store have probable cause to believe that any merchandise had been unlawfully taken?
[/quote]
Based on what I know from the Ohio law cited in this thread? Not if I were the judge. But I still wouldn’t be shocked if the store is found by a judge to be in the right, even if that same story is given by both sides. Pissed, but not shocked.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
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.
[/QUOTE]
There’s a reason why stores hire more young part time {and often short term} employees and a big part is that customers have said low price matters matter more than customer service. A consequence of this is that stores are now have fewer employees that have any long term vested interest in the store and more who will try to score something while passing through.
Just as customers don’t see a direct benefit of the bag checkers and it’s perceived as a hassle and a violation of rights , they don’t see the direct immediate benefit of customer service and long term professional employees. Low cost is an immediate benefit to them they can see so they choose that. That choose comes with some consequences in the marketplace. I’m not blaming anyone, just explaining the reality of the situation.
Yes I believe the bag check is to prevent employees from giving stuff away and to help prevent fraudulent returns.
At my store we have a lot of items being brought in to be sold to us or repaired so we log them to. Not to hassle people but to prevent crooks and unintentional misunderstandings.
It should be easy to understand that one or two employees at a bag check is significantly cheaper than several to watch 20 to 50 employees. Part of my job as manager is to keep a watchful eye on employees and check receipts to catch what the bag check guy might miss. Since I have a lot of varied responsibilities there’s a realistic limit on how much I can do. Stores are constantly trying to profit margin with overall cost of doing business. It’s an ongoing challenge and process of initiating policies and assessing how they are working.
Both customers and store employees can have varied degrees of being reasonable or unreasonable and that often turns what should be a minor issue into something blown out of proportion. Sometimes I’m in a lousy mood and make a call I might not make otherwise. Humans are like that and life rolls on. It’s retail after all, nothing life threatening, so keeping things in perspective helps.
I think if the guy had explained his position it might have helped the manager know that he wasn’t a shoplifter but just a customer with a strong opinion about bag check. I actually think after stating his case the best resolution was to make your point is by letting the bag be checked to prove that you are exactly what you say you are. A sincre customer who is offended by the bag check. Instead he chose to continue to assert his rights in a manner that left room for doubt about whether he was a shoplifter or not.
OTOH a better manager might see his family in the car and figured things out, but I have no idea how old this guy was and how much experience he had. After years of experience I have a good idea of what questions to ask to figure the situation out.
Had he explained himself and the manager still refused to get out of the way I’d say the manager made a pretty bad call, but I already think he did that. Loss prevention is often about discouraging shoplifters from coming back by letting them know you are aware of who they are and you are watching them. After confronting the guy outside he should have known there was ultimately nothing he could do and let it go. I’m sincerely curious about what he chose to do. You can’t accuse the guy or physically detain him because you’re not sure he’s a shoplifter. Instead you simply refuse to let him close his door and drive away. What was the desired result of that action?
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
Opinions vary and neither you or I are judges right? Seems clear to me is the point.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Yes, it is. My response was to whorfin’s claim that “there is NO possible way to argue that his behavior justified the store’s action under the law”.
If you mean that that is supposing that everything happened exactly the way Righi described, well, then I still can’t agree with you as Righi didn’t describe every action he took that may be considered suspicious.
Based on what I know from the Ohio law cited in this thread? Not if I were the judge. But I still wouldn’t be shocked if the store is found by a judge to be in the right, even if that same story is given by both sides. Pissed, but not shocked.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as bricker notes, I am working with the facts as presented.(as one must, arguendo).
I think the story would report if the store saw him steal something.
Also, as noted in post #163 (by E-sabbath, who appears to be far more knowledgable than I am about such things), to have probable cause, a store generally needs:
I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t have these six things. If being “nervous” or a “twitch of the arm” is enough, well, I’ll get searched pretty often as I walk out of stores. I don’t myself think that that’s enough to create probable cause. I’ve cited something suggesting that the standard is higher. Care to respond with your own authority?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
There’s a reason why stores hire more young part time {and often short term} employees and a big part is that customers have said low price matters matter more than customer service. A consequence of this is that stores are now have fewer employees that have any long term vested interest in the store and more who will try to score something while passing through.
Just as customers don’t see a direct benefit of the bag checkers and it’s perceived as a hassle and a violation of rights , they don’t see the direct immediate benefit of customer service and long term professional employees. Low cost is an immediate benefit to them they can see so they choose that. That choose comes with some consequences in the marketplace. I’m not blaming anyone, just explaining the reality of the situation.
Yes I believe the bag check is to prevent employees from giving stuff away and to help prevent fraudulent returns.
At my store we have a lot of items being brought in to be sold to us or repaired so we log them to. Not to hassle people but to prevent crooks and unintentional misunderstandings.
It should be easy to understand that one or two employees at a bag check is significantly cheaper than several to watch 20 to 50 employees. Part of my job as manager is to keep a watchful eye on employees and check receipts to catch what the bag check guy might miss. Since I have a lot of varied responsibilities there’s a realistic limit on how much I can do. Stores are constantly trying to profit margin with overall cost of doing business. It’s an ongoing challenge and process of initiating policies and assessing how they are working.
Both customers and store employees can have varied degrees of being reasonable or unreasonable and that often turns what should be a minor issue into something blown out of proportion. Sometimes I’m in a lousy mood and make a call I might not make otherwise. Humans are like that and life rolls on. It’s retail after all, nothing life threatening, so keeping things in perspective helps.
I think if the guy had explained his position it might have helped the manager know that he wasn’t a shoplifter but just a customer with a strong opinion about bag check. I actually think after stating his case the best resolution was to make your point is by letting the bag be checked to prove that you are exactly what you say you are. A sincre customer who is offended by the bag check. Instead he chose to continue to assert his rights in a manner that left room for doubt about whether he was a shoplifter or not.
OTOH a better manager might see his family in the car and figured things out, but I have no idea how old this guy was and how much experience he had. After years of experience I have a good idea of what questions to ask to figure the situation out.
Had he explained himself and the manager still refused to get out of the way I’d say the manager made a pretty bad call, but I already think he did that. Loss prevention is often about discouraging shoplifters from coming back by letting them know you are aware of who they are and you are watching them. After confronting the guy outside he should have known there was ultimately nothing he could do and let it go. I’m sincerely curious about what he chose to do. You can’t accuse the guy or physically detain him because you’re not sure he’s a shoplifter. Instead you simply refuse to let him close his door and drive away. What was the desired result of that action?
[/QUOTE]
the store manager is in effect physically detaining rigi. The fact that he isnt’ touching him is immaterial. If I lock you in a cell, you’re physically detained, even if I never laid hands on you.
i think we agree that Rigi may not have chosen the smartest course of action, certainly not the simplest. Maybe even not the best socially. It would have been WAY easier if he explained himself, or offered to let the manager check the bag.
But Rigi had no legal duty to do any of those things. Failure to do them cannot justify the manager breaking the law. Maybe as a matter of morals, or bringing up children, the right thing to teach is to be congenial and let people see your reciept if it doesn’t delay you.
but that’s not the law. Rigi had no duty to do either, and the manager is 100% responsible for the consequences of his (as we agree) foolish actions.
He cannot justify those actions simply by saying that Rigi failed to explain what he was doing. Rigi didn’t need to. I don’t need to tell you where I’m going tomorrow, even if it would make things a lot easier for you if I did. I don’t need to let you look in my bag, even if it would help you a lot.
We really need to get back to the key question-not was it smart, or polite, or rational for Rigi to do what he did, but did he do anything legally wrong, or that justified the manager’s restraining him. And the answer, so far as I can see, is no.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
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.
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.
[/QUOTE]
I hope you understand that I’m not arguing that his being a jerk somehow justifies an illegal act. I’m not. That’s just an observation.
My only question about the legalities of it is , does the manger’s action of standing in the open door and refusing to move when asked repeatedly to do so, actually qualify in a legal sense as unlawful detention. I’m not sure. We’ll see what a judge says.
Overall I think both parties made bad calls that allowed it to escalate.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
My only question about the legalities of it is , does the manger’s action of standing in the open door and refusing to move when asked repeatedly to do so, actually qualify in a legal sense as unlawful detention.
[/QUOTE]
Generally speaking, yes. Preventing a person from moving freely, as that person desires to move, is detention.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I hope you understand that I’m not arguing that his being a jerk somehow justifies an illegal act. I’m not. That’s just an observation.
My only question about the legalities of it is , does the manger’s action of standing in the open door and refusing to move when asked repeatedly to do so, actually qualify in a legal sense as unlawful detention. I’m not sure. We’ll see what a judge says.
Overall I think both parties made bad calls that allowed it to escalate.
[/QUOTE]
I of course understand (and am glad to debate with someone both articulate and able to strongly and intelligently defend their position). I, of course, separate my own opinions from those taken in debate as well.
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know if you are. However, to me, a common-sense definition of unlawful detention is “stopping someone from going where they want to go without a legal right to do so”
So we have three things.
Did the manager stop Rigi? it seems clear that that was his intent. I really don’t think we can debate much about whether this happened-if the manager really didn’t intend to stop Rigi, then he’s the true jerk for failing to step to the left when asked nicely.
Does it matter that the manager never touched Rigi? I don’t think so, any more than being locked in a room is a detention. Even being locked in a big room, or a palace seems to be a detention if you don’t want to be there, and someone is stopping you from leaving.
Did the manager have a legal right to detain rigi? There are two issues here:
a) Did the manager have probable cause to suspect Rigi of shoplifting? I don’t think so.
We disagree, but on the facts as given (without assuming any twitch, move, or clerk saying he saw Rigi put something in his bag (not in his pocket, as asking to look at his bag is not a reasonable response when you think someone is hiding something in their pocket)
b) if the manager did have probable cause, was his act consistent with his right to detain Rigi? Again, the Ohio law cited seems to suggest the manager could detain Rigi TO WAIT FOR THE POLICE. The store didn’t call the police. They weren’t detaining him until the police arrived; police only arrive if you call them.
This suggests that EVEN WITH PROBABLE CAUSE, the store may not have been legally detaining him (in that hypothetical, it seems much closer). Without probable cause, the store has nothing.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
I of course understand (and am glad to debate with someone both articulate and able to strongly and intelligently defend their position). I, of course, separate my own opinions from those taken in debate as well.
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know if you are. However, to me, a common-sense definition of unlawful detention is “stopping someone from going where they want to go without a legal right to do so”
So we have three things.
Did the manager stop Rigi? it seems clear that that was his intent. I really don’t think we can debate much about whether this happened-if the manager really didn’t intend to stop Rigi, then he’s the true jerk for failing to step to the left when asked nicely.
Does it matter that the manager never touched Rigi? I don’t think so, any more than being locked in a room is a detention. Even being locked in a big room, or a palace seems to be a detention if you don’t want to be there, and someone is stopping you from leaving.
Did the manager have a legal right to detain rigi? There are two issues here:
a) Did the manager have probable cause to suspect Rigi of shoplifting? I don’t think so.
We disagree, but on the facts as given (without assuming any twitch, move, or clerk saying he saw Rigi put something in his bag (not in his pocket, as asking to look at his bag is not a reasonable response when you think someone is hiding something in their pocket)
b) if the manager did have probable cause, was his act consistent with his right to detain Rigi? Again, the Ohio law cited seems to suggest the manager could detain Rigi TO WAIT FOR THE POLICE. The store didn’t call the police. They weren’t detaining him until the police arrived; police only arrive if you call them.
This suggests that EVEN WITH PROBABLE CAUSE, the store may not have been legally detaining him (in that hypothetical, it seems much closer). Without probable cause, the store has nothing.
[/QUOTE]
And, of course, IANAL.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
the store manager is in effect physically detaining rigi. The fact that he isnt’ touching him is immaterial. If I lock you in a cell, you’re physically detained, even if I never laid hands on you.
[/QUOTE]
Incorrect analogy. Was the guy standing in front of his car and refusing to move detaining him also? Could he have announced, “We’re driving away now. If you don’t move you may be injured. If my car is damaged you’ll pay for it.” and moved forward slowly? It’s weird hairsplitting stuff but that’'s the legal call sometimes. I’ve admitted I don’t know. Anything else?
Why do we need to do that? There are other interesting aspects.
[QUOTE=whorfin]
If a policeman knocks on your door, asks to search through all your rooms, tear out your walls, dig through your foundation to see if you’ve hidden any dead bodies there,* and you refuse, that doesn’t give the cop the justification to then forcibly search your house.
[/QUOTE]
Just to clarify my personal position, I disagree with a sizeable line of recent S.Ct. decisions as to what are reasonable stops and searches.
-Permitting the detention of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation in order to get a drugsniffing dog.
-Generously interpreting as “voluntary” permission granted to a uniformed officer in various conditions.
-Upholding DUI arrests following without cause traffic stop to obtain info concerning unrelated crimes.
-The list goes on.
I readily acknowledge, however, that the S.Ct. decisions represent the current state of the law.
And I personally disfavor the vast majority of what I consider “security theater” whether in airports, public buildings, etc.
However, this background contributes to my baseline opposition to what I perceive as additional privacy intrusions - however small.
Just wanted to let you know exactly what kind of a nut you were dealing with here! 
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Incorrect analogy. Was the guy standing in front of his car and refusing to move detaining him also?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Standing in the doorway or in front of the car is detention because it prevents free movement.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Incorrect analogy. Was the guy standing in front of his car and refusing to move detaining him also? Could he have announced, “We’re driving away now. If you don’t move you may be injured. If my car is damaged you’ll pay for it.” and moved forward slowly? It’s weird hairsplitting stuff but that’'s the legal call sometimes. I’ve admitted I don’t know. Anything else?
[/QUOTE]
Let me know if the situation ever arises where someone is standing in front of your car and refusing to move, and you warn him you are about to drive away, and in the process of running over him you damage your car.
I’d love to represent the other guy. No wierd hairsplitting involved. (And IAAL!)