[QUOTE=mks57]
How about kidnapping and assault? My presence on your property does not give you the legal authority to detain and search me, even if you have a sign on the wall.
[/QUOTE]
Oh and while I am at it, amazing how you have gleaned this little gem from our legal system but corporate counsel for oh probably a hundred or so major retailers nationwide have somehow missed it.
I show the receipt.
It’s no skin off my nose and it keeps shoplifting down and thereby lowers costs. Pretty small price to pay, IMNSHO.
My position is that the merchandise is mine after I’ve paid for it, and unless they have witnessed me NOT paying for merchandise they damn well better not interfere with me.
The only stores I know of around here that do that are Best Buy and CompUSA. Best Buy sucks anyway, but it’s too bad CompUSA has to resort to that harassment of their paying customers who have done nothing wrong. I order most of my stuff online anyway.
[QUOTE=drachillix]
(bolding mine)
Circumventing door checks could easily be construed legally to be the same as setting off an alarm on an RFID system. Since all the RFID system is, is an electronic door checker.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure a lawyer will be along shortly to confirm (or not), but I doubt if that’s actually the case. Not consenting to a search isn’t considered probable cause in other settings, so I doubt if it would be here. Thankfully.
[QUOTE=drachillix]
Uh, these people are just as much part of the checkout process as the cashier. IF you do not like shopping where they are present, do not shop there. I do not endorse their methods, but I have no problem with them doing as they see fit with their business on their dime within the bounds of the law. If you contine to shop there, you are endorsing it.
[/QUOTE]
We’ll need a lawyer to confirm this, but whatever “checkout process” a store desires can be done before the sale is made. Once money changes hands, I don’t have to submit to any more of their crap unless I’ve already agreed to it. I bought it, it’s mine, and I’m leaving.
I am at a complete loss here. Harrassment? Treated like a thief? treated like crap? Give me a break.
[QUOTE=Kevbo]
Your missing the point that the reason for doing the check is that they trust the CASHIERS less than they trust the customers. When I worked retail there were a few busts for petty shoplifting, but the big losses were inside jobs.
[/QUOTE]
I beg your pardon? They don’t trust their employees and the response is to insinuate that I am a thief? Bullshit and double bullshit. That’s the worst excuse yet. If they suspect that they are hiring thieves then that has fuck-all to do with me.
You people have been fucking brainwashed. No one has the right to search me or my possessions without my consent unless there is reason to suspect a crime has ben committed. Give up that right if you want to. As for me–no thanks.
I consider it a minor inconvenience.
But I think it may get undue attention because it is near the end of the multitude of inconveniences - minor and major - that seem to make up a trip to the store these days. After dealing with unpleasant store layout, ignorant salepeople, and incompetent checkout folks for the pleasure of spending your money in their establishment, having to show that you are not a ciminal can seem like icing on the cake.
I’m not a big fan of shopping, even under the best of circumstances. But one thing that tends to bug me is when a store/restaurant makes it difficult or time consuming for me to pay and leave.
I have no idea about the legalities involved, regarding store personnel’s right to stop and search, and any recourse for folks wrongly detained. I suspect it may well vary state-by-state. As has been observed, once you pay, it seems to me that title to the items has passed. Although stores have the right to set certain policies - such as checking all bags, I’m not sure what enforcement is available to them should you refuse to comply other then refusing entrance to the store, asking you to leave, telling you not to come back, etc.
There are many situations where businesses put up legal-appearing signs, appearing to set forth some legal obligation, with no legal support for the policies/liabilities described. My favorite example are the sign on a golf course saying “Golfer is liable for all damage to property or persons caused by struck ball.” Sorry - no.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Thought experiment:
The next time you go to Circuit City, you enter the store and begin browsing. Moments later, you’re approached by the manager, who hands you a written trespass notice. “You’re not welcome to shop here any longer, sir / ma’am.”
“What? Why?”
“You refused to cooperate with our inventory control procedures last time you were here. You’re no longer welcome in any Circuit City store. if you re-enter our property after being given this warning, we’ll have you arrested for trespassing.”
Would the existence of such a consequence change your mind?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. Missed this.
Inventory control procedures? You have to be fucking kidding me. Two questions.
What in the world does a customer have to do with a business’ inventory control?
Why would you (apparently) assert that items that I own are part of a store’s inventory? One I own it it is part of my inventory. They can check their shit until the cows come home, but hands off mine.
[QUOTE=DMC]
I’m sure a lawyer will be along shortly to confirm (or not), but I doubt if that’s actually the case. Not consenting to a search isn’t considered probable cause in other settings, so I doubt if it would be here. Thankfully.
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying the RFID system performs a different task?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
The customer, almost nothing. The door check procedure, plenty.
[QUOTE=drachillix]
Are you saying the RFID system performs a different task?
[/QUOTE]
If it performed the same task there would hardly be any need to detain citizens who have committed crime, yes?
[QUOTE=drachillix]
The customer, almost nothing. The door check procedure, plenty.
[/QUOTE]
Explain to me how my possessions are part of a store’s inventory.
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
We’ll need a lawyer to confirm this, but whatever “checkout process” a store desires can be done before the sale is made. Once money changes hands, I don’t have to submit to any more of their crap unless I’ve already agreed to it. I bought it, it’s mine, and I’m leaving.
[/QUOTE]
Would you assault a store security person blocking the exit?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
If it performed the same task there would hardly be any need to detain citizens who have committed crime, yes?
[/QUOTE]
Answer the question.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Explain to me how my possessions are part of a store’s inventory.
[/QUOTE]
Since in many areas you have technically not shoplifted until you have exited the premises, it is still part of the stores inventory until it has left the building. Jurisdictions vary.
[QUOTE=drachillix]
Would you assault a store security person blocking the exit?
[/QUOTE]
Would you resist a store security person atempting to restrain you for no good reason? Are these people really “store security person(s)?”
My answer? Anyone other than duly appointed law enforcement personnel who attempt to restrain me with no good reason need to pack a lunch.
The answer is no, as a casual reading of my post would have revealed. Now you answer mine.
Unles you have a cite, I gotta say BULLSHIT.
[QUOTE=drachillix]
Would you assault a store security person blocking the exit?
[/QUOTE]
I would call the police and have him arrested for unlawful imprisonment.
[QUOTE=drachillix]
Since in many areas you have technically not shoplifted until you have exited the premises, it is still part of the stores inventory until it has left the building. Jurisdictions vary.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? No one is shoplifting anything, remember? We’re talking about bothering people who have just paid and are attempting to leave. Once it’s paid for it no longer belongs to the store - period.
Leaving the store with product you have NOT paid for is shoplifting. Trying to leave the store with product you have not paid for is shoplifting, but that’s not what we’re talking about. I paid for the stuff in the bag, it is now mine, they don’t own it now because I paid for it, so it is mine. They have no right to peek into my bags now that I have paid for something that is now mine. If they don’t like it, they can ask me to leave, but that is exactly what I’m trying to do!
If my wife and I were leaving a store without buying anything and the guy at the door demanded that he be allowed to look through my wifes purse just to make sure we weren’t stealing anything, would you have any problem with that?
[QUOTE=drachillix]
Are you saying the RFID system performs a different task?
[/QUOTE]
Of course it does. If an RFID system asked me to submit my receipt to a scanner, then proceeded to scan my bag of items, then I might agree that the are performing at least similar tasks.
All that an RFID system does is check to see if any activated security tags are in its vicinity. It doesn’t concern itself with whether the signal is from a impulse rack that is a bit too close to it, the person right in front or behind me, or from the item I stole at a completely different store that happens to use the same system setup.
The best evidence that they have different tasks is that the stores that do check receipts at the door invariably (from what I’ve seen and heard of) have RFID systems as well. If they did the same thing, you wouldn’t need both.