Fair enough though I disagree. Just because they hang a silly sign up doesn’t mean I’m ethically or legally required to waive my rights.
Marc
Exactamundo!
I worked in a music store. All the clerks knew by memory what the total plus tax would be for $12.99, $13.99, $14.99 … $19.99.
A customer walks up with a CD, the clerk calls out the total price, pretends to punch a few buttons, sends the customer away with a bag and no receipt, and pockets the cash. If the customer questions the lack of a receipt, the clerk claims the receipt “just didn’t print for some reason.” The clerk re-rings the transaction properly, saying he will just have to void out the [non-exsitant] previous transaction later.
I don’t know how similar your music store’s layout is to a Circuit City, but I’m highly skeptical this would work very long, if even once, as a thieving method at a Circuit City given the reasons I provided. People watch their merchandise being dragged along the scanner. People watch the oversized LCD layout. Everyone knows that you ALWAYS get your receipt at a major electronics retailer, especially if you paid by credit card. If you are paying cash, there is no way in hell someone isn’t going to say, “Excuse me, but the LCD screen says my camera costs $13.90, yet you are giving me the correct change after I gave you 2 100 dollar bills even though the LCD screen isn’t telling you what change to give me back and I watched you swipe swipe an item that was not my camera. What the hell are you trying to pull here? MANAGER!!!”
Agreed. I was speaking to creative methods of employee theft generally. I mentioned a gas station example earlier even though CC doesn’t sell or refill auto oil.
Ayn Rand is an interesting person, who suggested a lovely philosophy in her book, The Fountainhead. And Atlas Shrugged.
So what has the local prosecutor said about this case? Anything?
-FrL-
Is there a betting pool on the issues of liability and damages?
I have to say, this guy is kind of a dilhole…and God bless the dilholes.
I, personally, am a Nice Guy. When asked for a bag/receipt check, barring some bizarre circumstances I’m going to say “Sure, go ahead”, and give up that 10 seconds of my life just to not cause undue stress for the poor schlub working a shitty job for a shitty salary. But, I am fully aware that the only reason I am able to get away with being a Nice Guy and without having my legal rights eroded away into meaninglessness is because every once in a while, a dilhole comes along and makes a fuss that keeps the lines drawn where they should be, even though doing so makes life briefly miserable for the poor folks involved.
I think he was within his rights to do what he did, and that the burden for the conflict that arose rides squarly on the shoulders of Circuit City in this case. I think that the police officer had no grounds to bring any kind of charges against him. I hope that the charges against this man get dropped, that the police officer gets chastised and educated on what the shopper’s legal rights were, and that the local Circuit City takes at least a nice PR hit, if not a decent $$ lawsuit for escalating this situation beyond what it should have been. All so that I can go on being a Nice Guy, not causing anybody any unneccessary stress while the few, honorable dilholes of the world make sure that my good will doesn’t work to erode away my legal rights.
I haven’t read Fountainhead but I did read Atlas Shrugged. Ayn needed to get laid more.
I think this kind of theft is less likely at a fully computerized electronics store but not impossible. Not all customers watch the clerk ring stuff up. Quite a few are talking to someone , dealing with kids, or any number of things. You tell them a number, they hand you cash, you give them change and a bag and they go on their way. A clever brazen thief would judge which customers were preoccupied and which weren’t. Even if customers suspected it was on purpose most will not openly accuse anyone who says “Whoops I made a mistake”
Part of the reason I think it’s less likely is after a few mistakes management would be watching that employee and often there are repeat customers and pulling the same stunt on the same customer would also send up a red flag. Managers have a shitload to do though so it could go unchecked for sometime and passed off as a mistake
I know. Thats why I said That’s true. I’m only pointing out that they can also ask you not to shop there and make it stick if you repeatedly ignored their policies and argued with them about it several times. A minor point.
Is there an award for the longest thread about the most insignificant event? If so, this one surely is in the running! And I’m proud that I played a small part in it. 
cos, if I am unable to accomplish anything else here, PLEASE let me disavow you of the notion that if someone is standing in front of your car, all you need do is politely inform him of your intention to drive forwards, warn him of his possibility of injury, and then gently nudge him out of the way with several thousands of pounds of metal.
If I must, I’ll try to find some citation of authority, but absent a reasonable perception of imminent harm or necessity on your part (e.g. the guy blocking you is pointing a gun or otherwise threatening you, you have to get yourself or a passenger to the hospital. you are Jack Bauer and need to save the President of the US, etc.), what you propose is NEVER an option.
I admit I may be way off with that one and I’ll be glad to be educated. To clarify though, I think what you’re saying is that if * I warn said cognizant reasonably intelligent person who is trying to block me from leaving, and move forward slowly I am still responsible* if** they are injured.
What if they do move and they are not injured? My guess is that most people barring any extreme circumstances, would move.
Hey, me too! My longest thread so far had been 8 pages, and my longest one not in the pit was only 3.
Not at all my bailiwick, but I could easily imagine circumstances where you could be sued/charged for some kind of “intent” or “threat” to harm, assault (which does not require “touching”), infliction of emotional distress, etc. Would likely come down to the specific facts.
Consider it this way, who is going to say you are justified in driving your car towards someone to make him move, when you have the alternative options of calling a cop or someone else in authority, continuing to try to talk the guy into moving, or any number of other things with less potential for harm? Sure, it might cause you some inconvenience to have to wait for a cop to show, and you might feel you should not have to do anything more to get this guy to move, but can you explain a situation where your inconvenience outweighs the potential damage caused by striking someone with your car? Moreover, despite your warnings, when driving forward you had full knowledge that if things did not change, you would hit the guy. And you had complete ability to prevent it from happening, simply by not driving forward.
Side point, one time I was crossing a street in a crosswalk in front of a stopped car. The car slowly started moving just slightly before my leg had cleared its bumper with the result that it barely nudged my leg. Didn’t think much of it at the time, but the next day it hurt like a MF. Bottomline, if an object weighs as much as a car, it doesn’t have to be moving fast to cause some damage.
Also, you don’t get to pick your victims and tell them how to respond. Sure, someone might run over your foot and you have the good fortune of barely noticing it. But the guy whose foot you run over might be a hemophiliac, or have some other condition that makes him susceptible to injury.
From Righi:
I was going to comment on this earlier, but I forgot. If the court says it was not a “detention” because Righi could have just driven forward anyway, the court is essentially saying that people who feel detained in this manner should just run over their alleged captor, or create a risk of harm to the alleged captor by potentially running over the alleged captor.
Moving a car with a stubborn and hostile person that close to it is just ripe for potential injury. I think the court would side with Righi on this issue and find that, although an alleged victim may use reasonable force to defend himself, the law should not require the victim to employ a means of movement that would create am unreasonable risk of harm to anyone: even the alleged captor.
In other words, the law should not require people to use force in self defense or otherwise negate a false imprisonment claim by saying an alleged victim is not “detained” because the alleged victim had a means of free movement when the only reasonable means of free movement required the use of force or potential use of force against the alleged captor or another.
Slightly restated:
The law should not require people to use force in self defense or otherwise negate a false imprisonment claim by saying an alleged victim is not “detained” because the alleged victim had a means of free movement when the only reasonable means of free movement required (1) harm or a potential risk of harm to anyone; or (2) the use of force or potential use of force against the alleged captor or another.
Or they could check and see if the cashier remembered to put all your merchandise in the bag. So while this lemming has it pointed out that his memory card is laying underneath the credit card scanner, the rebel gets away with his bag unchecked and his New Kids on the Block CD sitting under a scattered pile of free magazine cards.
You go rebel guy!
I may be even less qualified than you on this, Dinsdale, seeing as I’ve been on “inactive” status with the bar for over five years, but every time someone mentioned “well, they could have just driven forward slowly,” the words “Assault with a Deadly Weapon” kept blinking in 50 point type in my head. Now, it probably wouldn’t actually be charged as “assault” because (confusingly enough) criminal codes tend to use “assault” to mean an actual attack, rather then threat of attack, as (IIRC) common law civil actions had it. Nevertheless, just as you are not allowed to point a loaded gun at someone and say, “Get out of the way, I’m going to pull the trigger in five seconds,” I think it is a VERYVERYVERY bad idea to drive your car at or near someone in hopes this will make them move.
Do you really think that’s why they check? Tell you what, the next time you visit a store where thay check your receipt at the door, conceal a purchased (and paid for) item in your pocket. When the door guy checks your receipt, see if he says “Wait a minute, you don’t have your copy of Tiger Beat that you paid for”. Let me know how it works out.