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

Great Debates
541

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I’ve following along here and I have to come down with the guy being able to do as he pleased or did not, with regard to an oradinary citizen demanding to search his bag, produce title to his belongings or otherwise. If they had a reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, they may file a complaint or effect an arrest and ask him to provide his title to the merchandise to refute any evidence they may have of shoplifting. Again, he is innocent and unless there is evidence that he is guilty of a crime, he has no obligation to prove innocence. Whether or not he was an asshole has zero to do with it. Being an asshole is not a crime, even if you think he was. Anyone can demand proof of anything from anybody, as most people here seem to be familiar with. We are also familiar that no one is obligated to do such by any kind of law. The only reason to ever have to legally provide a receipt is to rebutt some evidence of guilt. If you have no evidence of guilt, you simply can not demand he prove himself innocent. That’s just how we do it here. Store policy may ba an issue but if he signed no agreement or even if he technically entered a contract, it was not a contract he willingly entered with knowledge of such a contract. It’s a moot point.

Should he have shown his receipt ? That’s just a matter of opinion. That’s all it comes down to. No one is right or wrong on that issue. Was he required by any law to ? Certainly not, as he was not charged with any crime for refusing to do so.
[/QUOTE]

I’m curious as to why you posted this. Who has suggested that he was guilty of a crime? Anyone? No one that I can see. Unless one considers being an asshole a crime. It might be a shame, but it’s not a crime.

542

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Yes, I see. Thieves will simply bypass the checkpoint and the merchant will be without a practical remedy. If the fact that the bag check is voluntary, by law, ultimately renders th bag check policy useless, then so be it. Find another way to prevent loss in compliance with the law.

Perhaps you are saying the law should permit mandatory bag checks without probable cause or contract. I, for one, believe this goes too far and gives undue power to merchants at the sacrifice of the personal privacy of the public.

Also, for those of you who are concerned about the line between bag checks and body cavity searches, the merchatnts’ privilege, in California anyway, permits a merchant to make a limited and reasonable search of any packages, shopping bags, handbags, or other property in the immediate possession of the person detained to recover an item, but may not search the clothing worn by that person. (Penal Code § 490.5(f)(4)).

I think the legislature has struck a good balance between the merchants’ property rights and the public’s privacy rights here.
[/QUOTE]

Unless the courts make it legal it will eventually go away. What takes it’s place will probably be less convenient but such is life. One way to increase security is to have fewer employees and less customer access to goods. Won’t that be fun.
One way to absorb the cost is to make products that don’t last with more profit margin so people have to replace them more often. There’s another great idea.

543

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’m curious as to why you posted this. Who has suggested that he was guilty of a crime? Anyone? No one that I can see. Unless one considers being an asshole a crime. It might be a shame, but it’s not a crime.
[/QUOTE]

Let me say again, I have been following along. It has been a long debate that comes down to matters of opinion. “He’s an asshole”. “No he’s not”. I just thought maybe we could rest on the fact that it is a matter of opinion, something we’re all entitled to. I don’t think anyone can prove much of anything here, or even lend any evidence to make a reasonable claim. They asked for a receipt, he said “no thanks” that’s all for the facts. The other charges actually have nothing to do with the whole receipt thing. There is no crime in the “show your receipt” debate. All you have to do is say “I think he’s being an asshole” to which others say, “I don’t think so”. That’s the end.

544

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Well, yes and no. It’s our collective problem. If given the choice between A) lower prices and/or a more enjoyable shopping experience (access to the actual stuff), but having to take ten seconds to have your bag and receipt looked at and B) the opposite of A, I’ll bet heavily that people choose A. I resnt the asshole working toward B. Fuck him and the shetland pony he rode in on.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, my comment was sarcasm. I see the human interaction on the sales floor as a good part of our society, rather than something to be avoided. Less access and less employees may be more secure but not really a plus IMHO.

545

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Let me say again, I have been following along. It has been a long debate that comes down to matters of opinion. “He’s an asshole”. “No he’s not”. I just thought maybe we could rest on the fact that it is a matter of opinion, something we’re all entitled to. I don’t think anyone can prove much of anything here, or even lend any evidence to make a reasonable claim. They asked for a receipt, he said “no thanks” that’s all for the facts. The other charges actually have nothing to do with the whole receipt thing. There is no crime in the “show your receipt” debate. All you have to do is say “I think he’s being an asshole” to which others say, “I don’t think so”. That’s the end.
[/QUOTE]

Well, thanks for the summation. I would have been lost without it.

546

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Yes, my comment was sarcasm. I see the human interaction on the sales floor as a good part of our society, rather than something to be avoided. Less access and less employees may be more secure but not really a plus IMHO.
[/QUOTE]

I agree coompletely.

547

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Unless the courts make it legal it will eventually go away. What takes it’s place will probably be less convenient but such is life. One way to increase security is to have fewer employees and less customer access to goods. Won’t that be fun.
One way to absorb the cost is to make products that don’t last with more profit margin so people have to replace them more often. There’s another great idea.
[/QUOTE]

I would restate, from many years of experience, that from a curb vendor with a cart, to Wal Mart or Circuit City, there is very, very little differnce in the rate of stealing. From a bank, to a dry cleaner, the rates remain remarkably constant. Regardless of security measures, it still happens. The answer is not increased security. It is only demonstrably related to cultural and human issues of morality, obligation and respect. I have crunched the numbers for years, as my job, to try and demonstrate to national retailers why they should spend money on security measures. The truth is that there are no security measures against human nature. You may write it off to another spread sheet and make it appear that you are not losing money, you may call it charity but the bottom line is that people steal. Period. You can lock away all your money and goods from the puiblic if you want. The people you give access to it, will steal it. It’s true in banks, retail establishments, in service industry the janitors steal the toilet paper and take it home or sell it or just give it away. People steal. You might even get prosecutions from your money spent on security (although it is the exception rather than the rule) and guess what ? People steal. Even in the offices of the most highly paid and priviledged, they steal. If they get caught, the next guy who witnessed the whole debacle, still steals.

548

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
I’m not sure I follow this. A judge would not decide the shopkeepers privilege should extend to permit bag checks absent probable cause because deciding whether to extend merchants’ rights to conduct bag checks is the role of the legislature. Also, a judge would not decide a customers’ skipping a bag check creates probable cause to conduct a bag check for reasons already discussed.

This sentence is confusing:

“No rights violation as long as they make a law that says violating it is okay and with good reason?”

Something is either a rights violation or it isn’t. There is no rights violation when the legislature decides what the rights are by statute and people do not then violate those statutory rights as those statutory rights are interpreted and applied by the courts.
[/QUOTE]

Waxing constitutional I guess. There’s lot’s of questions about whether laws passed are violating our constitutional rights or our basic human rights. Patriot act, wire tapping. Countries can pass any laws imposing all manner of burdens and demands on their citizenry. Do we shrug and say, well it’s fine, there’s a law that says so. We decide where our priorities are and what to spend our energies on. That was my point way back. For this guy to decide this was the issue to assert his rights on seemed like making a mt. out of molehill. There are mountains that deserve our attention.

549

Let’s assume some new facts for fun:

Assume he skipped the bag check because he was in a hurry and running late for an appointment because the cashier checkout lines werer longer than he anticipated due to a “price check” on register 3. He did not skip the bag check because he was on some personal crusade to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Then, instead of “playing dumb” while in the merchants’ illegal detention in the parking lot, he explained to the merchant that he has no obligation to submit to a bag check and is offended by the illegal detention. He calmly explains that, in light of the merchants’ scare tactics, bullying, and illegal detention, as a matter of principle, he refuses to submit to such tactics and demands immediate release. Otherwise, he will call the police. He also explains that he skipped the bag check because he was in a hurry and why he was running a bit late, but he has decided that resolving this bag check issue according his legal rights has now become more important than the appointment for which he was running late.

The merchant keeps him detained and demands a bag check.

No crying birthday kids involved.

Still an asshole?

550

[QUOTE=magellan01]
…I gave you 4 distinct reasons that sets the bag apart. …
[/QUOTE]

You did? OK, hold on, lemme look. Oh, wait… you mean THESE?!?

  1. So if they put it in one of their bags, and give me the bag, the bag is still theirs? And they get to search it? What if I put it in a different bag that I brought with me from other shopping. Does the reasonableness of their search disappear? How long does their ownership of the bag endure? Do I have to grant visitation rights?
  1. What if I just bought a Circuit City vibrator? Or an R-rated but erotically themed video, and there are two nuns behind me?
  1. It’s even more common to hide shoplifted items in one’s pants. Does that make it reasonable for the store to search those without cause as well? But of course, you are talking about the vast unnamed array of wares available at CC that are too large to be hidden elsewhere on one’s person, but remain invisible to all casual perception when placed in one of their magic plastic bags.
  1. My doctor says that about my prostate exam. It’s clearly a matter of opinion.

Furthermore,

Don’t you see how these statements undermine the notion that these receipt check are at all effective and worth the indignity?

This is your version of reason. Now I know.

551

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I would restate, from many years of experience, that from a curb vendor with a cart, to Wal Mart or Circuit City, there is very, very little differnce in the rate of stealing. From a bank, to a dry cleaner, the rates remain remarkably constant. Regardless of security measures, it still happens. The answer is not increased security. It is only demonstrably related to cultural and human issues of morality, obligation and respect. I have crunched the numbers for years, as my job, to try and demonstrate to national retailers why they should spend money on security measures. The truth is that there are no security measures against human nature. You may write it off to another spread sheet and make it appear that you are not losing money, you may call it charity but the bottom line is that people steal. Period. You can lock away all your money and goods from the puiblic if you want. The people you give access to it, will steal it. It’s true in banks, retail establishments, in service industry the janitors steal the toilet paper and take it home or sell it or just give it away. People steal. You might even get prosecutions from your money spent on security (although it is the exception rather than the rule) and guess what ? People steal. Even in the offices of the most highly paid and priviledged, they steal. If they get caught, the next guy who witnessed the whole debacle, still steals.
[/QUOTE]

I know. The goal is to minimize. If you’re saying you can’t successfully minimize stealing with good procedure and practices I disagree.

552

I’m not sure why people are arguing over the scope of a proper search once probable cause is established. The California law I cited above states a reasonable search of bags, purses, and property is ok, but searching a person is not… unless you guys are arguing over what the law should say. (?)

553

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Let’s assume some new facts for fun:

Assume he skipped the bag check because he was in a hurry and running late for an appointment because the cashier checkout lines werer longer than he anticipated due to a “price check” on register 3. He did not skip the bag check because he was on some personal crusade to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Then, instead of “playing dumb” while in the merchants’ illegal detention in the parking lot, he explained to the merchant that he has no obligation to submit to a bag check and is offended by the illegal detention. He calmly explains that, in light of the merchants’ scare tactics, bullying, and illegal detention, as a matter of principle, he refuses to submit to such tactics and demands immediate release. Otherwise, he will call the police. He also explains that he skipped the bag check because he was in a hurry and why he was running a bit late, but he has decided that resolving this bag check issue according his legal rights has now become more important than the appointment for which he was running late.

The merchant keeps him detained and demands a bag check.

No crying birthday kids involved.

Still an asshole?
[/QUOTE]

That’s a lot of supposing. Let’s just suppose the store employees were assholes and the customer wasn’t and save time.

554

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That’s a lot of supposing. Let’s just suppose the store employees were assholes and the customer wasn’t and save time.
[/QUOTE]

I guess my question boils down to whether he would be an asshole if the only issue was that he could have avoided further “trouble” and police involvement by simply showing the bag in the parking lot instead of standing up for his principles.

555

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
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.
[/QUOTE]

…
I assume that from their point of view, for all they know, he planted them and called the police to frame her.

Maybe a guest at your house, someone who’s even temporarily in residence can give permission for a search, I don’t know. Someone who doesn’t live there and doesn’t have any rights to the property at all, however… I don’t think so. Wouldn’t it be the same as if your neighbor or co-worker called the police and walked them into your house when you were at work?
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone can grant permission for a search of my property except the property owners, absent a search warrant.

556

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
I guess my question boils down to whether he would be an asshole if the only issue was that he could have avoided further “trouble” and police involvement by simply showing the bag in the parking lot instead of standing up for his principles.
[/QUOTE]

I tend to think a reasonable person would have voiced their objection , pointed out that they had no legal right to search his bag, and in the end, let them , rather than let it escalate to police involvement over such a trivial thing. That doesn’t exclude a sincere and angry letter or phone call to upper management.
But we’re human and reasonableness varies.

557

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I tend to think a reasonable person would have voiced their objection , pointed out that they had no legal right to search his bag, and in the end, let them , rather than let it escalate to police involvement over such a trivial thing. That doesn’t exclude a sincere and angry letter or phone call to upper management.
But we’re human and reasonableness varies.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but is my hypothetical customer an asshole?

558

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I know. The goal is to minimize. If you’re saying you can’t successfully minimize stealing with good procedure and practices I disagree.
[/QUOTE]

The only practice and procedure that constitutes a claim of “theft” is that someone willingly took merchandise that they knew was not free, or knew that they were stealing.

The honor system reflects almost the same rate of theft as human and electronic verification of payment. The only thing that actually regulates theft, is human nature: guilt, honesty, etc. The very small statisical difference in the two (honor system vs verification) is again, human nature. In the honor system there are “borrowers”. The merchandise is not taken with the intent to steal but with the intent to pay later. And they do the majority of the time.

In fact, we have numbers to suggest that security measures actually increase the likelyhood of your business being targeted by thieves. Any gains made by discoverery or prosecution are offset.

The only actual notion of “proper procedure” is the cultural understanding of a group of people that stealing is wrong. The degree of social rejection of the idea is the only factor that correlates to the level of stealing in a particular subset of people. The only gauge of this is the punishment for the crime. If you punish by a year in prison, theft is not that high on your list of unacceptable crime. If the punishment is cutting off your hands, well, you get the idea.

The means for attempting to detect these crimes so that they are subjected to the punishment has little bearing. People usually only consider the punishment (the social measure of the acceptablilty of the crime) to determine if they will do it.

The best example of this is self check out. Retailers have discovered that honesty is the rule. In may cases, the incidents of theft drop with self check out. It removes the employee from the equation thus denying the opportunity for complicity that accounts for a large portion of stealing; “Free bagging”. It also imposes, at the personal level, ideas of honesty. There is no one to blame. There is no way to claim that the cashier made any mistake.

I could sell you all the guard service and cameras in the world and the fact is, you will still be in for just about the same loss with the added cost of the security. Of course, if I were still in the business, I wouldn’t be telling you this.

559

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Perhaps, but is my hypothetical customer an asshole?
[/QUOTE]

Where is the line drawn? What you’re talking about is just the reaction between two people based on lots of things. Attitude, choice of words, degree of politeness in the exchange. A good manager would back off after talking to a customer and discerning that he has no real grounds to detain the guy. If he still insisted on holding the guy while refusing to call the police and openly accusing him I’d say the manager had more claim on asshole while the customer might qualify as more stubborn than sensible. Does it matter?

560

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The only practice and procedure that constitutes a claim of “theft” is that someone willingly took merchandise that they knew was not free, or knew that they were stealing.

The honor system reflects almost the same rate of theft as human and electronic verification of payment. The only thing that actually regulates theft, is human nature: guilt, honesty, etc. The very small statisical difference in the two (honor system vs verification) is again, human nature. In the honor system there are “borrowers”. The merchandise is not taken with the intent to steal but with the intent to pay later. And they do the majority of the time.

In fact, we have numbers to suggest that security measures actually increase the likelyhood of your business being targeted by thieves. Any gains made by discoverery or prosecution are offset.

The only actual notion of “proper procedure” is the cultural understanding of a group of people that stealing is wrong. The degree of social rejection of the idea is the only factor that correlates to the level of stealing in a particular subset of people. The only gauge of this is the punishment for the crime. If you punish by a year in prison, theft is not that high on your list of unacceptable crime. If the punishment is cutting off your hands, well, you get the idea.

The means for attempting to detect these crimes so that they are subjected to the punishment has little bearing. People usually only consider the punishment (the social measure of the acceptablilty of the crime) to determine if they will do it.

The best example of this is self check out. Retailers have discovered that honesty is the rule. In may cases, the incidents of theft drop with self check out. It removes the employee from the equation thus denying the opportunity for complicity that accounts for a large portion of stealing; “Free bagging”. It also imposes, at the personal level, ideas of honesty. There is no one to blame. There is no way to claim that the cashier made any mistake.

I could sell you all the guard service and cameras in the world and the fact is, you will still be in for just about the same loss with the added cost of the security. Of course, if I were still in the business, I wouldn’t be telling you this.
[/QUOTE]

Well that’s all pretty interesting. I’ve seen lots of employees give stuff away, not just to friends but to help close a sale and create repeat business.
I do think there is some security even in the self check isles. The plates the bags are on are weight sensitive are they not? Most of the time there is one employee watching 4 check outs.
I catch your drift though and it jives with my experience. We were told just watching and making our presence known was the best deterrent but I also saw the patient professionals who would hang around looking for several hours waiting for the perfect time to scoop and walk out.