I didn’t think of that possibility. I was thinking more that he hid the item, and then put it in his bag, because the check is usually fairly cursory. I’m pretty sure that the Fry’s mentioned is the one I go to.
Living in this town, you are so right. But I doubt that any police department is going to mobilize the forces to track down someone maybe stealing a $50 item. Fry’s does not have alarms, btw. There is no place to put tags on most of the products, which are fairly small. I suspect there are plenty of security cameras around, since a lot of their inventory would be easy to put in a pocket. I also think assuming the guy was innocent because he didn’t look like a bum is pretty laughable. A professional thief is going to try to fit in. I don’t think this guy was, since he was buying other things, but maybe. It depends on he relative price of the unchecked item.
Seriously? That doesn’t strike you as indicating more of a problem with you than with the stores?
I agree that you are sending a message, but we disagree as to what the message is. Do you think the Target employees who are subject to your brusque marching out think “That guy is striking a blow for personal freedom!”? Or do you think it’s more likely they think “That guy’s a PITA”? Once you’re on your high horse, people don’t always understand why you’re up there, they just see that you’re up there.
Again, I don’t think that’s what it says at all; it just says you’re a bit of a jerk while still giving them your money. Whereas refusing to shop there – after telling them why – deprives them of your business and your money.
And yes, they sure as hell have a legal right to make you show your receipt before leaving the store. It is a private company, and if they want to make that a precondition for letting your shop there, they certainly can. They can also make you check your backpack at the counter, only let you buy three of some item that is “On Special (Limit Three)”; or insist that you, Mr. Eleven Items, not use the “10 Items or Less” line. Because it’s their store and you have no inalienable right to shop there, as I already said. And you don’t get to approve or disapprove of their policies, as if you are only bound by rules, regulations, policies, procedures, or laws, you’ve personally agreed to.
Now, you certainly can march right by them with a metaphorical raised finger when they ask to see your receipt. You can demand to buy a fourth cantaloupe when it’s a “limit three” special, refuse to move from the express check out line when you have too many items, or tell them you’ll keep your backpack with you, thank you very much. And the chances are that they’ll let you get away with it, because life is so short – and liability so long – that even at Target they know they have to pick their battles and decide what’s worth insisting upon and what is better to just let slide. But don’t for a minute think they consider you some freedom fighter holding the line against insulting and unwarranted suspicions of thievery: they just think you’re another cranky old fart with a knot in his shorts about something piddly.
But this is not correct. Don’t you ever go to Costco? (Maybe not.) Legally, if you know the policy of the store includes reserving the right to double-check receipts after purchase – and you do know that, obviously – then by shopping there you are implicitly agreeing to accede to that condition. Don’t like it? Then don’t shop there! No one is talking about “searching your belongings.” They didn’t rip the bag out of your arms, they asked to see your receipt. That does not present a search and seizure issue and even if it did – which it doesn’t – you have implicitly consented to the search by going to shop there after you know that’s how they do business.
Red’s absolutely correct. Red also needs to chill the fuck out.
Red: I never claimed my statement was how it is, but how I see things. I give retailers that courtesy, because, as someone who has worked retail security, I know the impact of “Loss” or “Shrinkage” from even honest mistakes is bad enough, without factoring in Shoplifting and Employee Theft.
The Law is on your side. The list of things that have to happen in order to make a valid “stop” is so onerous that I’m surprised that any legal stops ever get made; most of those I caught were stupid fuck-ups. The pros took tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars out of our store. It eventually shut down. That’s dozens of people now unemployed; that’s people who now have to travel further for their shopping needs; that’s revenue lost in the community.
But unless the bag checker was rude, threatening, or physically intimidating, you’re being an unreasonable dick about it.
Frankly, I really don’t care that much what they think, or if my intended message is actually conveyed.
Now we’re dealing with a bunch of hypotheticals. Neither of us can know what they think, so arguing beyond this point is really a futile exercise. Am I jerk for defending my right to not consent to their search? So be it. I’m totally content with being viewed that way. I think they’re being jerks by asking me to consent to such a search, but I’m guessing they don’t much care what I think either.
And I’ve already sent target a letter detailing such, so now my actions are being upheld with words.
Now you’re arguing a point I never made. Of course they have a right to “make me” show my receipt, as a “precondition,” which few stores outside of Sam’s Club or Costco do. In those case, I’m totally content with agreeing to their terms as a deal of my membership. However, in my examples, there are no such “preconditions” and such I maintain no responsibility to follow through on whatever they may demand precluding one.
And none of those I take issue with and are barely relevant to this conversation. If they want me to check my bag, upon entry, fine. I also don’t take more items through the express lanes than posted, so doesn’t apply to me. And you keep this I have no inalienable right to shop there – duh. They haven’t banned me yet, nor have I read any reports of such from others who flaunt their receipt policy.
Wait, what? They ask because they know people give in. I would also assume they know that the goods rightfully belong to me post purchase (unless they have evidence I did steal), hence why I wasn’t detained.
I addressed this in my above post, fyi. Costco is not an accurate comparison, for said reasons, and thus my original assertion is still correct, despite your claim to the contrary.
It is not at all clear that Red is right, and the law is not necessarily on his side. For a private company checking all receipts, this is a search and seizure issue, much less a law enforcement “stop,” because it’s not governmental action. Because the action is not governmental (no 4th Amendment claim), there probably is not a constitutional issue unless he can show disparate treatment (14th Amendment claim). No disparate treatment here. No invasion of privacy claim because there’s little privacy to items you just purchased from the store itself – it’s not as if they are demanding that Red open his backpack or purse. It might present a false imprisonment issue if he were detained – but he wasn’t. This is not at all the same as a detention of a customer for suspicion for shiplifting, although even if it were, in many states a shopkeeper is privileged to detain so long as there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct.
Cite? Why are items I just purchased less mine than those I purchased earlier? And I never said their search was illegal; if they ask and I agree, it’s definitely not illegal. So long as I can exit the store without showing my receipt without illegal penalty, I have few significant qualms with their policy.
Then you’re not realy doing to as a message at all.
Well, that’s sort of the end of the discussion, isn’t it? Gold star on your actions!
Something you did not initially say, of course.
This is mere semantics. You know they do it. How can you say that when you go there, you’re not on notice that they do it? Just that they didn’t tell you the right way, by posting a sign or putting it in a membership agreement? What if they did post a sign? Would you feel better about the practice then? This is how they do business, and you know it, and you know it before you even set foot in the store. So how can you say you are unaware that of it as a condition of you shopping there, of which you are aware before you even go in?
You don’t get to decide what’s relevant to the conversation, and these other scenarios are obviously completely relevant. They are further examples of customers being a pain in the ass based upon rights they believe they have or even just their own knowledge that they can be a pain in the ass and get away with it, because it’s probably too much trouble to check their behavior. The fact that you personally are a different variety of pain in the ass, for what you personally think are better reasons, doesn’t mean that’s not an equally accurate descriptor in all those examples.
Is that the sum total of your response? Then: “No, I’m not.”
Except it’s not a search, so it’s not implicating any right you have. But why are we still discussing it? You’re completely okay with your dickishness anyway, so I don’t see why you’d have to insist on an underlying right to support it. No one can stop you from being a dick anyhow, so just go out and live it up.
Of course, likewise! All I am pointing out is the possibility that you may be wrong in your analysis, and pointing out that not everyone will agree that you’ve stricken a blow against “further erosion of our rights.” If you were only looking for posts from people who agreed with you, you should have put that in the OP.
Not that you’re asking me, Jodi seems to be doing a good job of handing you your ass but you might want to reread your response in post #58. It sure seems like you’re saying that those items are yours legally because you bought them at the register. Your refusal to show your receipt further backs up your assertion that they have no right to review “your” items.
A side thought: this will now become a “What if” question I use with my dates. Most people I know keep an eye on how a new date treats wait staff in restaurants, and this will be one of my “conversation pieces” to help grade someone’s sanity and PITA percentage.
Yes, I realize people should stand up against unreasonable requests. This is not an unreasonable request. People who defending this position to the nth power strike me as dancing on the line of nuttiness. So, I thank them for giving me another topic to use to gauge dates.
sigh Of course people are going to disagree with me; when has there been a discussion where that hasn’t been the case? And I wasn’t looking for a virtual BJ from all the posters here, hence why I’ve taken the time to discuss with those who did disagree, in what I would consider to be a very civil manner (though I can’t say that for some of the others).
Huh? Of course I said those items are legally mine – that’s what I’ve been saying the entire time!
Cool, because if someone asks me this question now on a first date for said reasons, I’ll know they’re not worth my time.
I disagree, even more so when my arms are stuffed to the gills with their shit that I rightfully purchased. Now if they saw me trying to smuggle that table in my pants, then I’d have less of an issue.