[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
What other reason is there, other than they suspect that you may have stolen something?
[/quote]
Sweet Jesus, you people are sensitive. Why aren’t you campaigning against those detector things that go off when someone has stolen something? Forcing you to pass between those is falsely accusing you of a crime, isn’t it? Having security cameras in a store is falsely accusing you of planning a crime, isn’t it? I mean, if they knew you weren’t going to steal anything they’d let you go around the detectors and make sure the cameras were directed away from you.
You know, in the extremely unlikely event that that ever happens, I’ll deal with it then.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Sweet Jesus, you people are sensitive. Why aren’t you campaigning against those detector things that go off when someone has stolen something? Forcing you to pass between those is falsely accusing you of a crime, isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
No.
No.
Having cameras and “those detector things” is not an accusation of anything. I can’t believe that you are serious when you say that. Surely you can understand the difference between a security camera that records what transpires in a store, and a human being halting your movement and demanding that you prove you have not stole anything, can’t you? Because that’s what insisting on a receipt is.
If someone stops me and demands to see the contents of my bag, and I ask him why, what do you suppose he will say? All he can say is that he is making sure I am not stealing anything. That is an accusation of shoplifting. If he did not suspect me of shoplifting, there would be no reason to stop me.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Having cameras and “those detector things” is not an accusation of anything. I can’t believe that you are serious when you say that. Surely you can understand the difference between a security camera that records what transpires in a store, and a human being halting your movement and demanding that you prove you have not stole anything, can’t you?
[/quote]
No, not really.
No, it isn’t. “Because you’ve stolen something” is an accusation. “To check so you haven’t stolen something” isn’t. Not that any of this matters. My position isn’t that he doesn’t have the right or whatever, but that he was being a dick.
I’m in a shoe store wearing my brand new shoes and am asked to show the receipt? I’ll say that I don’t have it as I bought them somewhere else, and then it’s his move.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
No, not really.
[/QUOTE]
Well, for starters, the cameras are not preventing you from leaving the store.
You are mincing words, here. Implicit in the statement is the accusation that you are suspected of being a thief. If there were no suspicion, there would be no need to check. They don’t check the bags that they *know *are legitimate.
Well, you called the right “imaginary.” How is that not saying he doesn’t have it?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Well, you called the right “imaginary.” How is that not saying he doesn’t have it?
[/QUOTE]
That was more of a general commentary on the concept of rights. The point is that I don’t care whatever legal or moral right anyone may ascribe to the guy. He was causing trouble for the sake of it.
So, why do you want to look in my bag? Oh, you want to check to see if I havn’t stolen anything. Do you think I stole something? No? Then you don’t need to look in my bag.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Crooked employees? I should be forcibly restrained because the store has hired crooked employees?
When I purchase something, an agreement has been reached. An exchange of money for goods or services has taken place. The items then belong to me, and absent a charge of theft, I am in no way compelled to prove it.
[/QUOTE]
While still on their private property I would assume they have the right to insist you show proof of “ownership”. Don’t like it? Never come back.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Not really. Certainly you could say that it’s the register person’s job to insure that the person has everything that he says he has when he comes up to pay. But factory lines show how it is that any time there is more than one task that a person has to do, there’s a potential increase in speed by splitting the tasks among people.
I.e. if there are task 1 and 2, and persons Alpha and Beta, it’s often faster to have Alpha do task 1 and Beta task 2, than having each of them do both 1 and 2.
So thinking of the logistics of a Circuit City store, or even your local supermarket, how much time would be spent if each time someone checked out, the cashier had to step out from behind the counter to check through your purse for shoplifted items? I suspect it would be a lot more.
[/QUOTE]
But that’s not what they do at Circuit City, they check only the bag of recently purchased items against they receipt. The cashier has already placed all the items in the bag one by one as they were paid for And BTW, I own a retail store.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
That was more of a general commentary on the concept of rights.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose I’ll have to take your word for it. Your statement certainly does not read that way to me.
Ascribe to him? Either he has it or he doesn’t. And my contention is that the store employees were causing the trouble, without even the justification of self-amusement. It is inarguable that if they had not tried to stop him, none of this shit would have happened. * And he was doing nothing wrong at the time*. I see no reason to blame him. *He *did not initiate the conflict. *He *did not unlawfully restrain anyone.
As an aside, (I haven’t shopped in CC in awhile), does Circuit City put a mark on the checked receipt? (Costco does)
This is to prevent you from going to your car; dump off your purchase; go back in the store; pick up a second item; evade the register; attempt to exit with second item and a valid receipt. The marked receipt indicates you already left with merchandise, therefore you are trying to steal.
This was a common ploy when I worked in a large retail store.
If CC is marking the receipts, a) they’re smart b) one would be a prick to object since reduction of theft keeps prices down.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I suppose I’ll have to take your word for it. Your statement certainly does not read that way to me.
[/quote]
Nor to me. It was poorly written and not properly thought through.
Well, that depends on whether we’re talking about legal rights or moral rights.
They just wanted to see the receipt. They didn’t want a conflict. They didn’t want to restrain him. They wanted to see his receipt. Let’s not make it sound like they wanted a sample of his blood, urine and semen for registration purposes and then install a GPS tracker in his spine. They just wanted to see his receipt. If anyone asks me for a receipt, I’ll just say “oh” and show it. End of trouble.
Calling 911 seems like a rather reasonable response to me. He was being detained and rather than escalate the situation by using violence he called the proper authorities. Isn’t that what 911 is for?
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
In case anyone is interested in the actual law…
“(A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.
“(C) [A] merchant or his employee or agent * * * may detain another person for any of the following purposes:
“(1) To recover the property that is the subject of the unlawful taking, criminal mischief, or theft:
“(2) To cause an arrest to be made by a peace officer;
“(3) To obtain a warrant of arrest.
“(D) [T]he merchant * * * shall not search the person, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person’s consent or use undue restraint upon the person detained.”
[/QUOTE]
Seems to me it’s up to interpretation whether or not Circuit City employees had a right to detain Michael Righi.
Store personnel is in plain sight checking everyones bags upon exiting the store. Does not allowing store personnel to perform what is obvious standard store procedure give them probable cause to believe that something from the store has been taken? I can see good arguments being made either way.
[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
While still on their private property I would assume they have the right to insist you show proof of “ownership”. Don’t like it? Never come back.
[/QUOTE]
And I assume they don’t have such a right. On what do you base your assumption? Do they have the right to demand proof of ownership of the brand new sneakers on your feet? The cell phone in your pocket? If you drive onto a car lot, does the salesman have the right to demand proof that you own your car?
We have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. My proof of ownership was handed to me by an agent of the company. I am unaware of any law that states that while I am in a retail store I am subject to searches at the whim of the owners, absent accusations of theft. Can you cite any?
Then they can mark it at the register, when they hand it to me. And, as has been noted, receipt checks are part of the membership agreement with Costco. Apples and oranges.
Obviously, I object. I assume you do not mean to call me a prick. And this canard of keeping prices down is bullshit. It’s not my job to worry about their P/L sheets. If they can’t keep prices down without infringing on my rights, too bad for them. Other stores seem to manage somehow.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
They just wanted to see the receipt. They didn’t want a conflict. They didn’t want to restrain him. They wanted to see his receipt.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, restrain him they did. Conflict occurred. If “just wanting to see” something is backed by a threat, then it really isn’t “just” wanting to see something. It’s coercion. He “just” wanted to leave the store. With his personal property. They are the ones who made an issue of it, not him.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Store personnel is in plain sight checking everyones bags upon exiting the store. Does not allowing store personnel to perform what is obvious standard store procedure give them probable cause to believe that something from the store has been taken? I can see good arguments being made either way.
[/QUOTE]
Run that by me again. *Who *is allowing the personnel to do these checks? *Why *does the act of doing the check create probable cause?
That cite clearly means that the store has to have good reason to believe that *each *searched individual has stolen something, not that someone in the crowd has stolen something. If you think someone has stolen something, you may search him. No one else.
[QUOTE=PaulParkhead]
Here’s a thought - suppose I were to insist on searching my buddies when they left my house after a visit, just to make sure they hadn’t stolen any of my property.
I’m not sure about the legality of that, but it would certainly be the fastest way to ensure that I didn’t have many friends.
[/QUOTE]
This would only be a good analogy if you had lots and lots of buddies visiting you, and you had indeed had things stolen from you in the past.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
And yet, restrain him they did. Conflict occurred. If “just wanting to see” something is backed by a threat, then it really isn’t “just” wanting to see something. It’s coercion. He “just” wanted to leave the store. With his personal property. They are the ones who made an issue of it, not him.
[/QUOTE]
I just can’t see it the way you do, no matter how I try. If I’m asked for something this simple, it doesn’t occur to me to bitch and make trouble. Maybe they have a reason, maybe not, but above all it just does not matter. My dealings with the employee would have been quick and painless for both of us. 911 wouldn’t have to get involved, and there would certainly not have been any police officers wasting time on us. That’s a gain for absolutely everybody, and what this guy did led to trouble for everybody. I can’t help reaching the conclusion that my way is just better.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Run that by me again. *Who *is allowing the personnel to do these checks?
[/quote]
Who?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
*Why *does the act of doing the check create probable cause?
[/quote]
Read my post again.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
That cite clearly means that the store has to have good reason to believe that *each *searched individual has stolen something, not that someone in the crowd has stolen something.
[/quote]
What does that even mean? if you are refusing what is obvious store procedure for everyone exiting, I can see a good argument being made that store employees
have probable cause to believe that something from the store has been taken.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
If you think someone has stolen something, you may search him. No one else.
[/QUOTE]
A store agent with probable causeto believe something was stolen may detain someone. Again, I can see good arguments for both sides, but from the wording of the cited law, I’m not so sure Michael Righi has a good case against Circuit City.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
I just can’t see it the way you do, no matter how I try. If I’m asked for something this simple, it doesn’t occur to me to bitch and make trouble. Maybe they have a reason, maybe not, but above all it just does not matter. My dealings with the employee would have been quick and painless for both of us. 911 wouldn’t have to get involved, and there would certainly not have been any police officers wasting time on us. That’s a gain for absolutely everybody, and what this guy did led to trouble for everybody. I can’t help reaching the conclusion that my way is just better.
[/QUOTE]
If you have no problem with proving you did not steal something, then that’s just fine. Really. I do have a problem, however. And, again, if the employees had not escalated the situation, 911 would not have been involved. It wasn’t what *he *did that led to trouble, it was what *they *did. As has been cited above, they have no right to restrain anyone absent probable cause, which they specifically said they did not have. Rather, they falsely claimed to have the right to search any bag without probable cause. They lied,and they unlawfully restrained him. He broke no law. He was not charged with shoplifting, or violating the imaginary bag check law.
Your way just reinforces their bad behavior. How is that a gain for everybody?
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Who?
[/QUOTE]
That’s my question. Who is allowing these checks?
I have. I still don’t understand.
You are making the assumption that I, as a customer, am somehow bound by store procedure. Furthermore, your argument is circular. Refusing to allow a bag check justifies the bag check? Really?
Bolding mine.
It says nothing about blanket searches. The probable cause must come first, and must be on an individual basis.