You are. It’s obvious you don’t agree but his specific reasons for his position are clearly spelled out. If you haven’t grasped it by now and/or are unwilling to reread his posts to find it, there’s no point in him explaining it again.
He may have failed to convince you but he hasn’t failed to justify his position. He’s explained it in specific detail.
His ‘specific reasons’ seem to hinge on one thing.
He believes that saying ‘No, thank you’ to a request that you undergo a voluntary search makes you an asshole.
By definition, being unable to say ‘No, thank you’ makes the search no longer voluntary.
Since the law clearly states that the search must be voluntary to be legal, there is nothing legally unacceptable about responding ‘No, thank you’.
The phrase itself has always been considered in accordance with proper manners as taught from childhood (‘Yes, please.’ and ‘No, thank you’ have not been removed from politeness standards as far as I know).
And so, magellan01 creates a situation in which the customer, having completed his business with the merchant, is put into an unreasonable position: he is asked to comply with a voluntary search, but if he does not he is an asshole and deserves apparently to be arrested and scorned, which makes the search involuntary. And an involuntary search of a person’s belongings by a bag-checker is not legal.
According to magellan01, the only way not to be an asshole is to submit to involuntary, illegal searches by untrained, non-law-enforcement employees of retail stores.
Unless of course he has some other reason for calling Mr. Righi an asshole.
Incorrect. That’s not his reasoning.
He does and he has explained it in detail. Evidently you missed it.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Perhaps now these two will do the unthinkable and read the thread to discover the information they so hunger for.
Yet, somehow, I am not optimistic.
Tomndebb, I’m a little surprised that my characterization of specific behavior in this thread meritted your comment, but I do see your point. My apologies. I will attempt to not let my utter dismay over such a refusal to read the thread result in anything that may be construed as an insult, regardless of its percerived accuracy.
Since the thrust of his argument is that the store needs to do these searches in order to combat crime, and the searches are voluntary, anyone who refuses no matter how politely is an asshole who is preventing the store from catching shoplifters, I believe I have an accurate take on his reasoning.
He’s clearly indicated that his problem with Mr. Righi begins with the fact that Mr. Righi did not consent to be searched:
As Mr. Righi is in no way directly capable of setting prices, the only part of ‘option A’ that Mr. Righi can control is that he refused a voluntary bag search. Next, magellan states that Mr. Righi is ‘working toward B’ by not submitting to a voluntary bag check, and that this makes him an ‘asshole’.
Clearly magellan would prefer that this not be an option at all, because no matter how you dress it up as ‘You have two choices A or B’ it’s not a choice at all if you are not allowed to choose B. From the last two quoted sentences, magellan clearly does not consider ‘B’ (refusing the bag search) to be in any way a legitimate option, which makes his argument that there are options in his mind very disingenuous.
He summarized it himself with the above quotation. There are two options, but not really, because nobody should be able to choose the second one since it makes them an asshole.
No I didn’t. And you are the last person—make that one of the last two people—to determiine when I’ve summarized my position because you obviously have no fucking idea what my position is. And you don’t because you refuse to read the thread. Now that you’ve proven that you can scroll and read, do more of it. READ THE WHOLE THREAD. I mean, you evidently find my take on things interesting enough to wan t to comment ont them. Why not go the next step and READ THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT I WROTE? What you cited is NOT a summarization of my position or reasoning I’ve offered in the thread. You haven’t even hit on the main point— :rolleyes: —which I made numerous times.
Simply un-fucking-believable. I’ll keep this conduct of yours and the other fellow in mind as I read your posts elsewhere. Thanks for the warning.
You held him responsible for all of the unreasonable actions of both the Circuit City employees and the police officer who responded to his 911 call because he said ‘No, thank you.’
You stated in as many words that any refusal to submit to a voluntary search by store security is being an asshole.
You claimed that he has some kind of duty as a law-abiding customer to help the store catch its own employees stealing and that if he does not, he is an asshole.
You held him responsible for the tears of his siblings, which would have never occurred if the Circuit City employees had not attempted to overstep their legal bounds and detain Mr. Righi and coerce him into submitting to a search of his personal belongings by store employees.
And you fault him for standing up for his principles at what you have arbitrarily decided is the wrong time, because apparently for you, your principles are not so deeply entrenched as to believe that there is no acceptable time for abandoning them.
Your argument that store policy somehow trumps law is so ridiculous as to be meaningless.
The bottom line, however, is that you find saying ‘No, thank you’ reason enough to call someone an asshole and say ‘fuck you and the shetland pony you rode in on.’
All the rest of it is a red-herring.
You most assuredly do not as he just pointed out.
Wrong! He has lots of posts in this thread and that quote is not the summation of exactly why he thinks Righi is an ass. Don’t bother trying again.
Wrong
and wrong again
still wrong
not surprisingly…wrong
hmmmm…oh yeah,… wrong
not just wrong but this seems to be purposely distorting his point and close to an outright lie.
Congratulations your record is perfect.
Like not using condoms. Sorry, I figured this thread needed a real asshole.
Your exact words were:
How exactly did ‘the asshole’ work towards B?
Of course it’s up to** magellan01** but I can’t see why he should explain this post to you, who consistently misrepresents the points he has been making.
I can understand all the folks who simply disagree with the point being made, but I can’t quite fathom it when you insist someone is making a point that they clearly tell you they’re not making. It makes me wonder what you point is, or if you even have one.
There’s a shark a few hundred posts back that is wondering why it felt a shadow pass over it.
If this thread does not pick up a bit of substance with a lot less rancor very soon, you guys will have to find a different thread over which to feud. (I strongly urge that is not be in GD if it is going to result in several hundred long ways to say “Did not”/“Did too.”)
[ /Moderating ]
I was in a K-mart when the power went out. It was announced no-one could leave the store. I presume this was because the anti-theft system by the door was down. I went to the guard at the door, and said, “Excuse me, but this is false imprisonment.”
“Well, YOU are allowed to leave, but everyone else has to stay.” I walked right out.
This guy made two mistakes. He called the cops, therefore isn’t he the complainant? Aren’t complainants usually required to provide ID? If he had provided his ID and filed the complaint, he would have been ok. The cop might have even warned or arrested the store employees. But noooo, he had to be a smartass. Got what he deserved.
Or to put it more clearly:
“Hello, Police? I need you to come over, these guys are falsely imprisoning me!”
(cop arrives)
“So, you want to file a complaint against these gentlemen for false imprisonment. Let me start my report. Lets see here, I have this box that I have to fill in called “complainant”. That would be you sir. What is your name?”
“Um, I’d rather not say.”
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I mean seriously, WTF? If I was the cop, I would have run him down to the looney bin for an evaluation.
He’s required to identify himself, but there’s no requirement that he use his driver’s license to do so.
He gave the officer his name.
Where’s the problem?
He was the COMPLAINANT. If this guy isn’t even going to give up his driver’s license how in the heck is he ever going to go to court and testify? He has to be positively identified because the DEFENDANTS have the right to know who is testifying against them and be confronted with them. When I caught the guys breaking into my house and turned them over to the Sheriff, I had to swear out a complaint against the defendants. In the process I don’t recall if I was asked for official ID or not, but I certainly would have provided it because I am apparently not a clueless dick.
From his website: “I pulled out my phone and dialed 911.”
He called the cops. Mistake one.
He acted like a dick when they got there. If he had acted properly, the cop might have actually HELPED him make his stand. Mistake two.
= MASSIVE FAIL
The legality of it, I don’t really care.
I would add that mistake 0 was not letting the guy look at his Wii thing, which I sense may be at the root of his problems. 
And anyone that buys something called a “power squid” deserves to be beaten with it.
PLAINTIFF: [Displaying a black eye, speaking to the judge in court] I’m John Smith, and this defendant punched me in the face.
JUDGE: What is you defense, defendant?
DEFENDANT: [Hiding bloodied knuckles] How do we know the plaintiff’s name is REALLY John Smith?
JUDGE: What is your response, Mr. Smith … if that is your real name? :dubious:
PLAINTIFF: I’m John Smith, but I walked to court and I didn’t bring my ID.
JUDGE: Case dismissed!