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

Great Debates
481

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Sorry. You missed the parallel construction. Mother? Gone. Aunt? Gone. Girlfriend? Gone.

She’s the one who traded up, not me. He’s a lawyer. And, apparently, immune to her crazy.

She and I are still best of friends, FWIW.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry to hear about all the loss, but I think it speaks well of you that you were able to remain friends with her after she infringed on your right to sleep with her. :wink:

Good luck on the dating scene. Whatever you do, don’t make a quick stop at CC to pick something up.

482

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Sorry to hear about all the loss, but I think it speaks well of you that you were able to remain friends with her after she infringed on your right to sleep with her. :wink:
[/QUOTE]
Hey, wait a minute! You’re right! I ain’t been gettin’ any.

That bitch’ is goin’ down.

483

[QUOTE=Garfield226]
Hey, me too! My longest thread so far had been 8 pages, and my longest one not in the pit was only 3. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

I’m the proud father of this thread. :slight_smile:

484

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Oh give me a break. The policy didn’t start that day.
[/QUOTE]

OK, when did the store policy to illegaly detain someone start?

[QUOTE=magellan01]
And just because the store and the cop may have been in the wrong doesn’t mean what the kid did was right and not assholish. They’re both guilty, through different metrics.
[/QUOTE]
Mr Righi politely turned down the store’s policy of insulting customers. He was doing the store a favor by shopping there. In turn, the store treated him like a thief. The fact that the store policy was to treat “everybody” like a thief is a poor argument

The bad behavior started and ended with the store’s official policy of treating customers like thieves. By chasing after paying customer the store has incurred a lot of negative press. But unlike a local daily newspaper article this story will cover all of Circuit City’s current and future selling area. It will exist and propagate in cyber newspapers, emails, and debate sites until people tire of reading about it.

485

[QUOTE=Magiver]
But unlike a local daily newspaper article this story will cover all of Circuit City’s current and future selling area. It will exist and propagate in cyber newspapers, emails, and debate sites until people tire of reading about it.
[/QUOTE]

Which, in this case, seems to be about 500 posts.

486

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
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.
[/QUOTE]

To clarify; I do think Righi made the safest decision by calling rather than moving forward. My guess is given the actions he reported of the employees is that they would have moved aside rather than risk injury over a man who only might be a shoplifter. Like another poster asked, What were the employees trying to accomplish. Simply irritate the guy enough for him to say, “fine, here’s the dam bag” I really don’t get what they hoped to accomplish by sitting there without accusing him or without calling the police.

Legally though I still wonder. It was obviously their intent to detain him and maybe that’s enough. If someone blocks me and will not move after warnings, am I allowed to use reasonable force to remove them? Driving forward slowly after a warning shows it is not your intention to harm anyone but only to continue on your way unimpeded.
Does blocking someone’s path by standing in a doorway constitute unlawful detention. If I walk toward someone in that doorway and touch them as I try to pass, have I assaulted them or have they assaulted me if they don’t move?

I’m thinking it’s wouldn’t be assault by Righi or his Dad if they moved forward slowly because it was the employees intent to purposely impede his path without reason.

487

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
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.
[/QUOTE]

That’s seems sensible to me. Then again, the use of force only comes into play when the person or persons blocking the path, refuse to move and make contact with the car by their own actions. As I said, if I walk into someone who has blocked my path intentionally after warnings , am I assaulting them or are they assaulting me?

In the long run I think the employees intent to detain him will be enough. Interesting nuances though IMO.

488

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Yes, I think he was unlawfully detained. If 8 big biker type dudes surround you but don’t touch you, you are being “held” against your will. BUt let’s not miss the forest for the trees here. I went back and read the OP’s link and don’t think anyone should miss certain information in the asshole’s—oops, sorry, the ASSHOLE’S—own account of the incident:

(bolding mine)

So, the asshole, knew there’d probably be a problem, as he seems to have researched this and was “very careful with his words” and knew the law. Yet he chose THAT DAY, a day with his family, his little sister’s birthday, with his three younger siblngs and dad in the car heading back to a birthday party to take his big, brave, stance against THE MAN.

I take back what I said about this guy wearing an asshole T-shirt, or having it tatooed on. It should be CHISLED into his forehead.

He wishes his little brother and sisters didn’t have to watch the whole mess? WOW, only if there possibly been some way for them to not have to have been exposed to that. Well I guess, NOTHING would have avoided that exposure, The tears, the ruined birthday. Nothing at all. Wait…except, maybe…taking five seconds out of your asshole life and OPENING THE FUCKING BAG!

B-b-b-but, he didn’t have to open the bag…the law says…wha, wha, wha… Well, the law of not being an asshole says that if you want to make what you view is a principled stand over some issue the size of a broken paperclip, you do it so YOU are the only one that is inconvenienced.

So, sis. Happy birthday! Sorry about ruining your day, but at least you got something to go with your Monkeybread—a monkey’s asshole for a brother.

I can only imagine my fathers response when I got home after pulling a stunt like that. Hopefully, the education did take place.
[/QUOTE]

I missed this the on the two read troughs I did. I agree with you. This ups his “What a royal jerk” quotient for me. I’d also say that it ups the asshole factor for the manager and other employee too. There’s kids in the car and they’re crying, you won’t accuse him of shoplifting or call the police, yet you’ll use your ass to keep him from shutting the door and stand in front of the car.
To what fucking end? Get over your fucking selves and move on.

In a remotely related incident. We had a lady with two kids come in and want a refund toward closing one day. Due to the circumstances of the purchase we offered her an exchange or a store credit. She was not happy and refused to leave until we gave her her refund which we wouldn’t do. Closing time passed and no other customers were there but she refused to go. Her kids got upset and started to cry and she blamed that on us. We repeatedly asked her to go and she refused.
We had no choice but to call the cops who informed her she was trespassing and if she didn’t leave he’d arrest her. One of my bosses said she was unlawfully detaining us by refusing to leave, which required someone had to stay until the issue was resolved.

489

[QUOTE=Magiver]
OK, when did the store policy to illegaly detain someone start?
[/QUOTE]

The policy to check someone’s bag started the first time they, well, checked someone’s bag. Feel free to contact the store and inquire about the date and time.

[QUOTE=Magiver]
Mr Righi politely turned down the store’s policy of insulting customers. He was doing the store a favor by shopping there. In turn, the store treated him like a thief. The fact that the store policy was to treat “everybody” like a thief is a poor argument
[/QUOTE]

Actually, they treated hiim like a reasonable person, a non-asshole. That was their second mistake (after not knowing the law).

[QUOTE=Magiver]
The bad behavior started and ended with the store’s official policy of treating customers like thieves.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, the whippings, thumbscrews and threats to chop off his hands were beyond the pale.

[QUOTE=Magiver]
By chasing after paying customer the store has incurred a lot of negative press. But unlike a local daily newspaper article this story will cover all of Circuit City’s current and future selling area. It will exist and propagate in cyber newspapers, emails, and debate sites until people tire of reading about it.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. You’re right here. They might lose some customers in the process. On the other hand, I will write them a letter in support, while recommending they find some way within the law to check bags if they feel they must. Perhaps a sign of some sort, on the door or at the register. That and I will go out of my way to give them my business. So, who knows, maybe they’ll actually gain customers. Given the way most people I know feel about assholes, I think it’s a good bet.

490

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I missed this the on the two read troughs I did. I agree with you.
[/QUOTE]

Uh-oh.

Seriously, I am quite amazed at the calculation he made. What a selfish egocentric, self-important jerk. Boy do I wish I was the judge he was coming in front of.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
This ups his “What a royal jerk” quotient for me. I’d also say that it ups the asshole factor for the manager and other employee too. There’s kids in the car and they’re crying, you won’t accuse him of shoplifting or call the police, yet you’ll use your ass to keep him from shutting the door and stand in front of the car.
To what fucking end? Get over your fucking selves and move on.
[/QUOTE]

Good point. Though one would think that the Righi would care more about his family tham an anonymous security guard or CC manager.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
In a remotely related incident. We had a lady with two kids come in and want a refund toward closing one day. Due to the circumstances of the purchase we offered her an exchange or a store credit. She was not happy and refused to leave until we gave her her refund which we wouldn’t do. Closing time passed and no other customers were there but she refused to go. Her kids got upset and started to cry and she blamed that on us. We repeatedly asked her to go and she refused.

We had no choice but to call the cops who informed her she was trespassing and if she didn’t leave he’d arrest her. One of my bosses said she was unlawfully detaining us by refusing to leave, which required someone had to stay until the issue was resolved.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. But I don’t think it is the same though. You and the other store employees were perfectly able to leave. You/they chose to not do so out of a sense of responsibility. But it sound like you would have been perfectly able to pick up your stuff and head home. You were not physically barred from leaving or threatend with harm if you attempted to do so. Now, you might have gotten fired for doing so, but that is between you and the management.

491

[QUOTE=Hello Again]
Just to be clear, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t enter the picture until the person doing the searching is an representative of the state. If I am your dogwalker, and while picking up your dog (using the key which you have given me) I find your crack and turn you in, no constitutionally protected search has taken place, because I am dogwalker citizen, not a public official.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not exactly true, or at least it isn’t in all areas. My brother found his wife’s meth stash, razor blades and such out on the bathroom sink within easy reach of his small children and tried to turn her in, but though the cops came out and sympathized with his position, they said they couldn’t do anything about it because they had no probable cause to enter her house and see it for themselves. They are estranged, partly because of the drug use but also because she’s a serially cheating crackwhore. He had her permission to enter the house to retrieve his property, but because he didn’t currently live there, he couldn’t give the cops permission to enter her house.

492

[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
My brother found his wife’s meth stash, razor blades and such out on the bathroom sink within easy reach of his small children and tried to turn her in, but though the cops came out and sympathized with his position, they said they couldn’t do anything about it because they had no probable cause to enter her house and see it for themselves.
[/QUOTE]

Your brother’s story doesn’t sound right. You call the cops, they ring the door, you answer and say, “come on in, I wanna show you something”, the cops can walk right in.

493

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
if I walk into someone who has blocked my path intentionally after warnings , am I assaulting them or are they assaulting me?
[/QUOTE]

Tough question. It will likely be determined on a case-by-case basis where the decision comes down to whether the jury had its coffee in the morning.

Consult your own attorney in your jurisdiction for the specifics of any case. The following is speculation provided for entertainment purposes only. Do not rely on the following at all. Ever.

Generally, self defense is only justified to repel the use of force or threatened imminent use of force.

It seems to me, just shooting from the hip, that if someone confines you by blocking a store doorway exit, then it is reasonable to assume that person will use force to try to prevent you from departing should you attempt to leave. Accordingly, in that case, it would seem reasonable for you to use only that force which is necessary in “self-defense” in an attempt to make an escape.

Actual or threatened use of force is not always necessary to find unlawful confinement in false imprisonment cases though. If your boss unlawfully coerces you into sitting in his office as part of an unlawful investigation with threats of firing you, you can’t legally punch his face on your way out the door.

If someone has a better analysis, I’d love to hear it.

494

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Your brother’s story doesn’t sound right. You call the cops, they ring the door, you answer and say, “come on in, I wanna show you something”, the cops can walk right in.
[/QUOTE]

Evidence is tossed out in court due to the fact that as a non-resident to the house, my brother does not have the right to invite the cops in and give them permission to search.

495

[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
Evidence is tossed out in court due to the fact that as a non-resident to the house, my brother does not have the right to invite the cops in and give them permission to search.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that’s correct. I’m pretty sure even a guest at my house can invite a police officer in to show him drugs on a sink.

496

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Legally though I still wonder. It was obviously their intent to detain him and maybe that’s enough. If someone blocks me and will not move after warnings, am I allowed to use reasonable force to remove them? Driving forward slowly after a warning shows it is not your intention to harm anyone but only to continue on your way unimpeded.
[/QUOTE]

Emphasis on the word “reasonable.” Person blocks you with his 200 pound body, so you move him aside with your 2000 pound auto. Instead of the alternatives including calling for assistance, getting out of the car and walking away, or heck - even physically using your own 200 pound body to drag him out of the way. Now you tell me whether you are going to roll the dice trying to convince a judge or jury which society should sanction as the act of a “reasonable” man.

Extreme and ridiculous analogy: you slap me repeatedly with a wet noodle despite my requests to stop, so I pull out my gun and shoot you dead. Well, you had no legal right to hit me with that noodle, and I got you to stop.

Regarding the asshole bumping into me or cutting me off, there was a time that I used to get upset about such things and get involved in macho posturing over such silly stuff. Personally, I am glad I have outgrown such bullshit, whether I am in the company of others or alone. Curiously, I became less concerned with such petty crap at the time I was better learning how to defend myself. Since I was comfortable with my ability to take care of myself and others when truly needed, I became less concerned with meaningless dickmeasuring displays. Yep, I’m the guy who after being bumped or cut off will walk/drive away, despite being called a coward, to avoid further unpleasantness.

497

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Emphasis on the word “reasonable.” Person blocks you with his 200 pound body, so you move him aside with your 2000 pound auto. Instead of the alternatives including calling for assistance, getting out of the car and walking away, or heck - even physically using your own 200 pound body to drag him out of the way. Now you tell me whether you are going to roll the dice trying to convince a judge or jury which society should sanction as the act of a “reasonable” man.

Extreme and ridiculous analogy: you slap me repeatedly with a wet noodle despite my requests to stop, so I pull out my gun and shoot you dead. Well, you had no legal right to hit me with that noodle, and I got you to stop.

Regarding the asshole bumping into me or cutting me off, there was a time that I used to get upset about such things and get involved in macho posturing over such silly stuff. Personally, I am glad I have outgrown such bullshit, whether I am in the company of others or alone. Curiously, I became less concerned with such petty crap at the time I was better learning how to defend myself. Since I was comfortable with my ability to take care of myself and others when truly needed, I became less concerned with meaningless dickmeasuring displays. Yep, I’m the guy who after being bumped or cut off will walk/drive away, despite being called a coward, to avoid further unpleasantness.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think your analogy works. Not because it’s a bit silly, but the only purpose of a gun is to harm others, even if it’s self defense. I think you’d be able to punch the noodle assailant in the nose without unnecessary force but not shoot. What I’m suggesting is that the driver do what he intended to do all along with no intention of harming others. Drive on. I’m even suggesting that he go slow giving the offender ample opportunity to move aside or stay in harms way by his own choice.

either way neither one of us knows for sure and I accept you are probably right.
Later I’ll see if I have time to look up assault and see where the lines are drawn.

The thing that bugs me about this is that it seems according to your position, anyone can unlawfully detain anyone simply by standing in their way and refusing to move. If I forcibly remove someone from my path , even if they are much smaller than me and get bruised because they struggle rather than move aside, have I assaulted them? Somehow I don’t think so. I don’t think the weight of the car is an issue if he goes slow showing that his intention is not to harm anyone.

498

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The thing that bugs me about this is that it seems according to your position, anyone can unlawfully detain anyone simply by standing in their way and refusing to move. If I forcibly remove someone from my path , even if they are much smaller than me and get bruised because they struggle rather than move aside, have I assaulted them? Somehow I don’t think so. I don’t think the weight of the car is an issue if he goes slow showing that his intention is not to harm anyone.
[/QUOTE]

Right. And your recourse is to seek redress through the legal system, not to hit him - albeit gently - with your car.

The question of whether you “assaulted” (or “battered”) the little guy while moving him will be a question of fact for the judge/jury. How reasonable were your actions given the totality of the situation. That’s the way most of us prefer our society, with complex disputes resolved in courtrooms, rather than by individual interpretations of street justice.

Having been unable to convince you by now, I got nothing more to say.

499

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The thing that bugs me about this is that it seems according to your position, anyone can unlawfully detain anyone simply by standing in their way and refusing to move. If I forcibly remove someone from my path , even if they are much smaller than me and get bruised because they struggle rather than move aside, have I assaulted them? Somehow I don’t think so. I don’t think the weight of the car is an issue if he goes slow showing that his intention is not to harm anyone.
[/QUOTE]

My post #493 goes to this issue, but does not totally answer the question. I think your hypothetical will come down to the mood of any given jury on any given day. Unless there is an appellate case out there that is pretty damn close to your fact pattern, there is no “right” answer.

500

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Unless there is an appellate case out there that is pretty
damn close to your fact pattern, there is no “right” answer.
[/QUOTE]

Wise observation, which many not familiar with the practice of law seem to not realize.

In the end, it comes down to which side is able to succeed in convincing the factfinder. Which is yet another reason to - whenever possible - avoid disputes that might end you up in court. The list of cases that I have lost that I should have won, and vice versa, is long indeed.