Slashdot Mirror
Man Wins Partial Victory In Circuit City Arrest
JeremyDuffy writes "Michael Righi, the man who was arrested at Circuit City for failing to show his reciept/driver's license, has fought a moral battle against the city for almost a month now. The case has already been settled and he emerged victorious... sort of. It turns out that he's already spent almost $7500 and would have kept fighting them too, but because his family would have been dragged into it, he was forced to take a deal. They've expunged his record and dropped all charges, but he had to give up his right to sue the city to do it."
Guess it is cheaper this way, than for the city to actually admit it screwed up..
Where's the ACLU when you need 'em? I would think a case like this would be right up their alley. I know it's not as "hot" as some of the stuff they've been trying to keep to lately, but c'mon.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
...can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in to Circuit City, buying something, and refusing to show ID? My friends, they may think it's a movement.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
In the days that followed a few things changed. First, I learned that the prosecutor was more interested in protecting the city against a civil law suit than she was in silencing my speech.
And by doing so she effectively did silence you and the Brooklyn, OH police department and city will not have a blemish on their record because one of their officers acted like an uninformed dick.
It's an unfortunate situation where you still have to pay out when you are completely in the right.
Really, this guy needs to learn to pick his battles. $7500 because he didn't want to show ID to a cop. Well, I hope it was worth it. I'm sure his poor wife doesn't think so, but she's probably too afraid of getting punched in the face to say anything to him about it. Being a cop and dealing with the garbage of society every day is hard enough without people like this guy going out of his way to be a jerk.
"One more such victory and we will be undone."
This headline needs rewriting as "Man wins Pyrrhic Victory". $7500 worse off and he didn't even get an apology. Hell, if he'd actually been shoplifting he'd have got a smaller fine than that.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I think every city/county/state with a reasonable sized police force needs to have citizen review boards with the power to punish/fire officers. It's the ultimate solution.
It will solve many problems and make cops stop and think before doing something stupid - especially with all the news lately about abuses of power and authority.
Internal reviews are useless and don't change a thing. If some kind of "policing for police" isn't done soon, it's only going to get much worse.
To each their own I guess, but sounds like a waste of time to me and snobbish.
Am I the only one who was suspicious of this. On his blog some guy said he was wrongfully arrested and that he was going to fight the city. He provided no links (at the time) to any news sites supporting his claim just. With no evidence he managed to get 52xx$ from the intertube community. This could have been a scam. He did in the end provide a link to the local newspaper saying that he has settled with the city. That article is the only evidence I saw that anything took place.
Don't sure us for screwing your rights over and we promise we won;t take you to court on those same made up charges. WTF?!?!?!?
He caved and basically has done nothing to prove the system wrong. he was so gung ho about not showing his licensee because it was a law and his right YET he has no spine to follow through cause his family might suffer?
News break: Your family is already suffering from it. Do you believe in what you did? Then sue the city. Oh it was all show, just wanted your 15 mins, and when push comes to shove you are a coward now? Go away.
THe money you would get would A) show the city it can;t mess around B) help your family (invest, emergancy funds, etc) and C) feed the poor lawyers.
Since he didn't actually force the city to admit any wrongdoing... all they did was drop the case. Seems to me like he wasted a lot of time and money for nothing.
Many years ago, when the web was still quiet and tiny, we had a little group of friends who promised to follow through with customer service and govenrment issues for one another. Since we all had various newsletters, writing gigs, and other media-style connections, we had the ability to contact people giving bad service via the phone and inquire to the service issues from a media perspective.
Of course it was more a joke than a reality, but as time grew, we found that hundreds of people calling businesses and police departments inquiring about "Any new information?" was a great way to get things fixed. I can recall one incident with Circuit City (of all places!) where the managers on duty received nearly 200 phone calls a day from "media inquiries" relating to a direct lie from a sales person to one of our group. It only took 2 weeks of "Any new information" for the company to back down and repair the situation, at which point there was no more news to cover.
Now I know harassment is a "crime," but why isn't there a site like phonedot.org? Instead of the slashdot effect, you can have the phonedot effect. Give it digg like capabilities so bloggers and other media contributors can vote up or down various customer service issues, and then let these thousands or hundreds of thousands of bloggers make their calls to see if there is "Any new information?" until the issue is settled.
When my previous city refused to get rid of the city sticker for vehicles, I typed up a newsletter and printed 30,000 of them to distribute. The newsletter had every phone number of every city official (home, work, cell). It only took 2 months of massive phone inquiries for the city council to end the city sticker harassment, and I think it was a net gain for those who called to inquire. Fight idiotic harassment with idiotic harassment.
Since the current administration has produced laws that make every one of us a criminal, it pretty much reduces back to being about our civil rights ';)
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Thank you Michael Righi for attempting to stick up for everyone's rights. But unfortunately the real lesson that everyone who reads this story will learn is that you don't really have any rights, you should just shut up and comply with authority if you don't want to be punished. Be honest now, if you find yourself in a similar situation and you think back on this story, what will you really do?
The guy spent $7500 on the case and forfeited the right to pursue further legal action against the city for being wrongfully arrested, but hey at least his criminal record is clean now? His record should have been clean the whole time, so there's no victory there either...
It sounds like the city pressured his family members to get him to sign. Where were they in this story before they called him to sign? Why didn't he hold out for not sueing but having the city pay for his legal fees? Paying the small legal fees now, would have been much cheaper for the city vs. going to trial.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Not that he would willing do so, but if he ever needs to call a cop in that town again, they are going to let him die rather than help him. Scandals like that come out in the news every so often, so you have to believe the attitude is fairly common.
I doubt he is out that much money. He had a pay pal site up and I know he had at least some donations.
The thing that drives me nuts about this is that it all could have been avoided if he just showed his receipt. What is wrong with this guy? These stores are victims of constant theft. In order to prevent this, they add a little bit of security. Think if you owned a store and had people stealing things out of it...wouldn't you want this? And then this prick comes along and tries to rush out without showing that he purchased the item. What are you going to think? I know I would think he was trying to steal something.
The guy is a jerk and completely unreasonable. He wasted the time and money of his own and of others just to satisfy his own ego. But Slashdot has some sort of anti-authority sentiment and don't like being told what to do even if it is reasonable.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
I fail to see where the victory is in this. The only thing he gained was that the charges were dropped. Considering that the charges were baseless to begin with, that is not much. On the other hand, the city won by making him pay $10k to fight a baseless charge and by getting away with no punishment for the city or the officer involved. Seems to be a weak victory to me...
My roommate in college signed everything from his check card for over a year: "Check My ID", or "Bill Gates", or "Bill Clinton" and/or "Jack Meoff" or something funny along those lines. Only got caught at it a few times. LOL
Sounds to me like four wrongs don't make a right. The story here is there are four a$$holes that have nothing better to do than be pricks. If you don't want to show your receipt when you leave a store, don't shop there. If someone doesn't show their receipt, don't illegally detain them. If you are a police officer, know the law you are supposed to uphold. These four idiots deserve each other.
This guy is like the Florida taser idiot - attention whores who create a big problem for attention. There are plenty of options available to you if you don't like the way a store choses to enforce it's security policies. I won't walk into a Guitar Center because of their ignorant and over the top 'security check' at the door. Go to Sam's they check your receipt, go to Best Buy and they check your receipt. Those last two places have been polite about it. I get it - people steal stuff and some of that theft if actually through the cash registers so to stay in business some businesses decide to have receipt checkers. When they are obnoxious like at Guitar Center I complain to the manager and never shop there again. I don't go cause a scene at the door while I'm with family members, involve the police and act like a complete ass as this guy did. Like the 'Don't taser me Bro' guy, this guy knew he was causing trouble and decided to push it until he was arrested. Good, and I'm glad it cost him some money, perhaps this clown will find better ways to 'fight the man' if he wants.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
I haven't fully thought this out but I wonder how different these things would go if it were illegal to ever give up your rights.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
You may be asked for your receipt. You cannot be forced to show it. That's the law. The store employees should be in jail for assault and unlawful imprisonment. What the cop did was not only not allowed by law, but specifcially prohibited by state law. He belongs in prison. But instead, people like you have made it absolutely clear that he will not be punished in any way for abusing his authority.
You, personally, are what's wrong with the world today.
He probably could still sue Circuit City. They detained him with no reason to believe that he was shoplifting.
It would depend on the shoplifting laws in Ohio, of course, but he should at least ask his attorney about it.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
First, his family is more important to him than his principles. No problem with that. It's even admirable, in a way.
Second, his family's convenience is more important to them than he is. That's not admirable at all.
...you know, wining cases against un-constitutional douchebags. They can get a little rich, after all, America is Capitalism.
Haliburton profits from destroying WMDs..I mean from stopping Saddam's nuke plans..I mean from luring Al-Quieda to Iraq, I mean they profit from bringing Iraq Democracy and Peace.
Why can't the ACLU profit from securing our rights as citizens by wining precedent-setting court cases?
Blar.
Why should this man relinquish ANY rights that he has to Circuit freaking City? What's more annoying, Circuit City systematically demanding all of its paying customers show their receipts as conditions for receiving permission to leave, or one man complaining about it?
I'm 100% sure Circuit City and Best Buy and all the other stores that have this policy are capable of thinking of a solution to shoplifting that doesn't require its customers to give up basic rights.
And that basic right is, of course, the right to leave THEIR store, that they just gave money to, without having to show some 22-year-old a list of everything you bought!
People in this country need to be more adamant about keeping our rights. It's not like the government has historically given back rights it has taken from its citizens.
How much have YOU donated to the ACLU?
They are simultaneously fighting many cases on many fronts. They only have so many people on staff, with so many hours in the day. If they are to fight more cases, they need to hire more people, which costs money.
So, they can only do as much good as they are paid to do, and they have to pick the biggest issues (like challenges to the PATRIOT act itself, over specific infringements for specific individuals).
If you want them to do more, pay them more.
The cops have no right to ask for our papers. We are citizens, not sheep. Insinuating that the man beats his wife because he refused an unlawful order from the police is beyond low.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This is one that should have been taken to the ACLU. I wish that he would have continued with suing the city or at the least made the city pay his costs. I have been the object of police before and am now aware that police AND gov can target an individual/group and make life absolutely miserable. RIght now, it is the white house that hates the ACLU. But it should all gov. that re-thinks what they do to their citizens. After all, gov should fear us, not the other way around.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Didn't you used to make sense back on k5? What happened?
Read the blog post. The guy claims to have the resources to pay for his own defense, and more importantly, the case would establish no new legal precedent (there are already two Ohio precedents that cover this situation).
The ACLU has zero reason to waste their limited resources on this case.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Of course he can still sue Circuit City.
He should also sue the city under 42 USC 1983 for violating his civil rights. The agreement he was forced to sign, putporting to waive his right to sue the city in exchange for not being criminally prosecuted, is unconscionable and is tantamount to extortion.
No, please stop apologizing for bigots. Would you feel the same way if the white kids had hung up swastikas and some jewish kids had beaten up the ring-leader? Would those jewish kids deserve 'attempted murder' when the bigot walked out of the hospitol hours later with less damage than most people involved in a car crash?
Blar.
If there is a jackass, it's Konath who apparently is a tool as he advocates caving-in to the "surrender your civil rights for cheap merchandise" crowd. Civil rights were hard-won by our ancestors and are far more important than big-box stores anti-shrinkage policies.
They dropped the charges, after $7000.00 in fees, headaches for his parents and a waste of civil resources in a DA, judge and officer.
And what did he end up doing? He admitted the officer did nothing wrong (by virtue of signing his agreement, he admits this) and a lawyer made some money off of him. Now he's parading around like he's a champion. He's not. He's a loser.
The cop and all his buddies are probably laughing about this one and they all clearly know his name, car, etc. He will catch no breaks with law enforcement anywhere around that place. The courts know he's a trouble maker and he won't catch any breaks with them. There's quite a few agencies waiting to nail him.
His family was put through all types of stress and duress and were desperate enough to call him late at night and tell him to stop being a jerk. His family is likely embarrassed their son and brother is a borderline lunatic obsessed with unimportant civil law.
I sympathize with the kid who was tazered. The police used unneeded force to punish someone when it isn't the cops jobs to punish people. This guy though got what he deserved: A $7000.00 bill, lots of wasted time, stressed out and humiliated family and a fat target on his ass for cops and courts to nail one day.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
And what lesson did he/you learn from that?
What is equal treatment for someone who has 2 prior battery convictions?
Should he be "let free"?
Ya know, I had in my head that this guy was some sort of a punk just looking for attention or money. Having read his blog about the case, I must admit that I am thoroughly impressed with this man and his principaled stand. I was blown away by the calm but strong tone of his wrap up, and his desire to put his family first, in the end. For this right winger, this man is everything that there is to be admired about the left wing, and the United States is better off for his citizen ship.
This is my sig.
It's great to yell and scream about your rights.
It's great to be able to have the ready cash to spend to help defend your rights when they're infringed upon.
Unfortunately, there are other pain-points that can be hit by authorities to make you comply with their wishes.
Lengthy court battles are the root of it. Sure, YOU may not mind taking all that time off work, and spending all that money.
But what about the people you have to drag into it (witnesses, family, etc)?
Moreover, they rely on apathy.
At the time, the anger and outrage are hot enough to barbecue whole cattle.
But, as time goes on, that anger cools. And it becomes harder and harder to keep oneself motivated.
The authorities know this. And time is on their side, ESPECIALLY since they've got the deep pockets to back it up.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This gentleman makes me proud. If it didn't cost everyone $7,500 to stand up to injustice, I guarantee there would be less injustice. I can't afford that, and I wager most others cannot either, so we tolerate the injustice because fighting it means we can't also "live."
Half the time the receipt checkers are standing where they can see you pay for the items, walk directly from the counter to the door. They can see that everything in that bag was put there by the cashier. If you're carrying anything stolen it's hidden where the cashier couldn't see it, and the receipt checker won't see it either.
That would have shut him up!
See, this is why the bad guys will always win. Because the good guys care and have something to lose. The bad guys don't. This is how rogues operate. So, the guy "won" a tiny victory. Society lost to malignant authority.
What?
Although exposing the police stupidity and incompetence is a good thing, and I do respect Michael for his stance regarding the police/city on this matter, I disagree with his views on the loss-prevention's right to inspect customers' bags:
No, while you are on their property, they are entitled to inspect stuff. If you don't want them to, don't go into the store — their intent to inspect your bag is prominently posted at the entrance.
Now, you can refuse whatever search you find unreasonable, of course (theirs was not unreasonable, IMO). In that case they can try to prevent you from leaving their property (store, parking lot) — see Citizen Arrest, and take all responsibility for the wrongful arrest.
Or they can call police, who — armed with the probable cause presented by the store — will inspect your bag for them... Upon inspection they can either let you go, or try to inconvenience you for inconveniencing them. There are many laws in their stinky books to do that. The one used by these cops — "interfering with official business" is one example. "Disturbing peace" is another, and it can be topped with "resisting arrest" at the first word of your indignant objection.
Another prominent moral of the story, is don't go on a moral crusade while your family is nearby... To them your high horse is just a stinky farm animal, unfortunately. Siblings will cry, parents will bail you out of jail, but your wife will simply call you an idiot.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Who is this "Konath" person?
Our ancestors wanted to live in a society. Anti-social losers like this whiner were treated at least as bad by our ancestors as this guy was treated. There were certain minimum standards of behavior in adult civilization back then.
maybe just show your damn receipt? and get on with your day?
Why should I let myself be treated like a criminal? They have no suspicion of illegal activity. They're illegally detaining me. If I want to walk out, I am.
If you submit to receipt checking, what's next? Metal detectors? The wand? "Secondary inspection?" It only takes a small earthquake to make a major avalanche.
i know, the common sense in that question is too much for you
but don't mind me, i'm just the advance guard for the coming fascist thinking right?
i mean, it couldn't be that i'm just thinking about common sense. obviously, i'm the personal advance guard of emperor palpatine and agent smith with my words, right? i'm a goosestepping shocktrooper right?
(smacks forehead)
no, i am most definitely not what is wrong with the world today
what is wrong with the world today is self-involved hysterical twits who's delicatef lower nature is deeply affronted and go apeshit, because... drum roll please... are you ready for the massive assault on rights and personal liberties?: SOME RENT-A-COP JUST ASKS YOU FOR A RECEIPT
omg! it's like the gulag!
maybe, gee, i dunno, i'm going to go way out on a limb here: HE COULD HAVE JUST SHOWED THE RECIPT AND HAD A NICE DAY
i know, that's some really wacky fascist thinking on my part, right?
pffffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I understand his argument, but I wonder if the police are allowed to ask for identification if you call them. He called the police, I wonder if that makes the circumstances any different. I understand this is to keep people from being harassed, but if you call the police out it seems reasonable that they would need to be able to document their call and know for sure whom called them out.
"No, please stop apologizing for bigots."
No, stop commenting without knowing the facts.
1. Charges were already reduced
2. One has 2 prior criminal convictions for battery. How is setting him free "equal" treatment?
http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS/70915030
I had a similar experience with (I think) CompUSA in Knoxville, TN a few years back. Mine was even more straightforward, though, and ended up in no hardships like this gent faced. Basically, I went in and bought _one_ thing. I even said "no thanks" to a bag. I head for the door with the receipt in one hand and the item in the other. On the way out, this woman appears out of nowhere, surprises me, and says "sir, I need to see your receipt." After a shocked step back, I say, "uh, no." I walk around her and keep going for the door. I guess she was surprised that I said no, because she didn't even follow for a few seconds. I get about half way across the parking lot before she catches up, yelling she has to see my receipt. I say, "no." She says, "why not?" I say, "I have *one* item in my hand. You can see that. I have a receipt in my other hand. You can also see that. What on earth do you think the receipt is for? Why would you need to see it to verify that it is for the one item I clearly just bought at the cash register I just left inside your store?" She says, "I need to make sure the item is on the receipt. We have problems with our cashiers ringing the wrong thing sometimes." I respond, "that is between you and your cashiers. I paid for the item I am holding. Your choices at this point are to call the police, in which case I will happily wait for their arrival. OR, I am going to get in my car and drive away." She just stood there, which I took for her choosing not to call the police, so I left. So the moral of my story is that sometimes saying "no" doesn't really cost you anything, and clearly in these cases it is the right thing to do. OH! I would also note that if everyone said "no", there would be no reasonable way for them to arrest everyone.
to 8 by 10 glossy photos ;-)
"Would those jewish kids deserve 'attempted murder' when the bigot walked out of the hospitol hours later with less damage than most people involved in a car crash"
To me a lot depends on the intent.
If they were just intending to bash someone, and that someone got bashed and didn't die, the IMO while it's still a crime it's definitely not attempted murder.
And even if that person did die, it's not attempted murder, but it's:
1) a serious crime for beating that person
2) A crime of homicide, as for what sort of homicide - that's for the courts to decide, same for mitigating circumstances
This is one of the reasons why I hav +5 flamebait turned on.
do you know what fascism is?
what kind of paranoid hysterical low iq twit mistakes fascism for a rent a cop asking for a receipt?
what the hell is wrong with you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Cops are not lawyers, not even close. There's no reason to expect them to know all the laws, or all of your rights. Do you even know all your rights? Many cases before the SCOTUS have ended in split decisions, so that means that there exist some very smart legal minds that would have done the wrong thing. (If they had been the cop or the arrestee)
A real police state would bring everyone in for questioning at least once a year and random times in between just for questioning, just in case they had done something wrong. Yeah, that's the ticket.*
* Note for the humor impaired, yes, this is satire.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
do you know what fascism is?
what kind of paranoid hysterical low iq twit mistakes fascism for a rent a cop asking for a receipt?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I agree that stores should be able to hire someone to stand around and *ask* if they could please see your receipt, if they think this will really deter some theft for them. There's no law against asking.... BUT, by the same token, you, as a paying customer, should have every right to *ignore* that request too.
The laws on shoplifting are fairly clear, anyway. You're not allowed to do anything to a suspected shoplifter until after they walk out of the store. Even if you stand there and watch them shove something in their pocket, there's no law broken yet if they haven't left store property with the item.
So this guy was completely in the right. He paid for his item, and held a printed receipt that proved it was paid for. He had no legal requirement or obligation to produce said receipt for some store employee standing IN THE STORE.
Wouldn't normally bother with a post just to say 'good job', but since the flamers are out in force, will throw in my 2 cents.
as far as dropping the case, I think he could have fought harder, but when it comes to family, it's a tough call. Personally I would have fought on, and just played some of the same delaying tactics the DA would use to keep dad from missing his trip, etc. I shop at sam's, and when there's a long line to get out the door, and 1 60 year old blind woman taking her time to check reciepts, I walk around. I've been chased down once, and complied while on the walk, but I refuse to waste my time after I've made my purchase. As far as CC goes, that would be an interesting case, because like florida police, I carry a taser, and would use it if I am being illegally detained.
An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
That's on shaky ground ethically speaking DR 7-105. THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
(A) A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. Whether he threatened to present the charges *solely* to gain an advantage in the civil case would be the point of argument. The prosecutor would say that it wasn't solely to gain an advantage, because it was the police officer who made the arrest, and the prosecutor just prosecutes whatever cases come to him. However, if the case is not supported by probable cause, he's not allowed to go forward. DR 7-103. PERFORMING THE DUTY OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR OTHER GOVERNMENT LAWYER.
(A) A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when he knows or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause. I would argue that the only reason the prosecutor threatened to go forward was to get the waiver of liability in the civil case. There was no merit to this case. An officer needs some level of suspicion to search a person or to require a showing of ID. There was no level of suspicion whatsoever here. There was no merit to this criminal case... at least according to what this fellow is telling us. One thing I've learned in my practice is that sometimes people charged with crimes lie... yeah, I know, hard to imagine.
They have to keep fighting the greatest threat to civil liberties in world history: the Boy Scouts.
Why not cooperate? Becausethis is not nazi germany or any other fascist state. Having to provide his id, is like having to carry your papers around
That stores are the biggest problem when it comes to credit card fraud and should be sued.
He was not charged with not showing his ID. He was charged with restricting the duties of a police officer.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
There's no reason they need to see anything on your person or belongings as you are exiting a store. They are free to look, but not forcibly invade. The worst they should ever be able to do is ban you from the store. That's it. End of story.
If they want to actually prevent shop lifting, there are numerous other methods to employ other than a rent-a-cop and the local police (cameras, ink tags, alarm tags, environment such as lighting and obstructed views, etc). Besides, a significant portion of retail theft is by employees, not paying customers.
did you try? was it recommended that you not 'go that far'?
you were not at fault (imho, fwiw) and its highly unfair that you pay court costs to remove an erroroneous black mark on your record!
analogy: someone eggs your house and you catch them. should they not pay for their wrong-doing AND also for the cleaning of your house exterior?
the city admitted they were wrong. you should have gone for full 'zero cost' settlement such that it cost you time, only, but not an actual financial burden.
the eggers should pay, not you.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"Example. In the state of Utah you are not allowed kegs."
Did you have them flown in? (Of course you probably live near a border, but it sounded funny in my head).
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Am I the only one that things this guy just wanted to see how he could "stick it to the man" in a some small way and be able to smirk at his little joke on the way out of the store. The phrase "chip on the shoulder" comes to mind. Is this the first time he's walked out of the store w/o showing a receipt? If not, why this time?
There is a time to stand up for fairness and justice. Raising a fuss over an issue so trivial as this is laughable. There are plenty of other, more important, issues about which one should make a stand.
Consider looking at the larger issue. Shoplifting is a major problem that increases the prices of everything we buy. --So just show them the receipt, and, perhaps, complain the next time they fail to do so.
WHAT IS SO FASCIST ABOUT BEING MADE TO SHOW YOUR RECEIPT
PLEASE, SOMEONE CONVINCE ME THIS IS FASCIST, IN ANY WAY
what the HELL is wrong with you??!!
by suggesting that you HAVE to show your receipt when you walk out of a store is in ANY way fascist, you yourself demonstrate oyu haven't the slightestr fucking clue what REAL fascism is
i really don't understand some of the paranoid hysterical twits in this world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
doesn't the store have a right to stop shoplifting?
okay: you're obligated to show your receipt
SO FUCKING WHAT???
this is people's idea of fascism? this is people's ideas of eroding liberties and freedoms?
i would suggest that such people who think so have no idea what fascism really is!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Allowing the DA to decide if and when to charge cops is like having the fox in charge of the chicken coop. The DA needs the cops on his side if he is to get his job done. So he isn't going to lift a finger short of mass murder. This was proven twice in the past couple of years in Northern Virginia where cops killed 2 unarmed persons and were never charged.
so why can't you just show your receipt????
(smacks forehead)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
First off, it's anyones right to be a bigot. After reading about this story it looks like to me that many in that, both black and white, are bigots. The racial tensions there have been growing for a long time.
With that said, the racial tensions need to be ignored when looking at the current case. Someone was beaten by 6 others. That was a crime and those 6 others should be charged. Supporting the 6 who did the beating makes no sense to me. Are we saying it's okay to beat down someone? Is vigilante justice the way to go now? Does not liking a certain group of people for whatever reason give them the right to come and beat that person down?
if this person is not cooperating then they have something to hide.
Your post makes the baby 5th amendment cry.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Actually, it was more in protest concerning NEVER having to sign receipts at gas pumps from his check/credit card for some $40 tank of gas but having to sign a receipt or electronic sig to buy a $5 case of Raman Noodles at the grodery store... Signatures were meaningless. Clerks don't check them, and often they are not required to anyway (of if they are, they don't). So what's the point of your ID and signature anyway if they are not always used and verified?
the above post is definition of a hysterical twit
people died to fight for your freedoms. and you redefine what your freedoms are as the most reflexive inconsequential minutiae as to betray a profound lack of realization of real problems with this world and a sickening narcissistic self-absorption
if someone brought the founding fathers back to life and explained this situation to them, they would say "so fucking what?" in unison, and look puzzled that anyone would seriously care that much
for real
grow the fuck up you delicate fucking flower
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If asking for reciepts make you mad also, here is something you can do.
The next time you are in a checkout where they check for reciepts at the door, wad it up and stick it down your pants when they give it to you. When you get to the door and they ask for it, be obvious about the fact that it is down there and retrieve it but don't unwad it. I think it is unlikely that they will take it from you and unwad it. At that point you can ask if they have any more requests and be on your merry way!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Saying: "He must have a lot of time on his hands". Translation: "I don't approve of how you spend your time."
Saying: "You've gotta pick your battles". Translation: "I've gotta pick your battles."
Talk about "snobbish".
I am not a crackpot.
The primary item on the ACLU's agenda should be bullshit precisely like this--and I don't mean the original complaint.
The idea that to end a case of asserting constitutional rights one must explicitly give up more constitutional rights--in particular, even free speech (don't say negative things about police? W-T-F? [insert In Soviet Russia jokes here]), and then to consider it a "victory?!?"--is arguably the greatest indication of how frightfully corrupt the foundations of our entire legal system are. The fact that even the local newspaper grabbed onto the inconvenient malquote and quickly rectified it to appear doubleplus ungood for the marginal victor isn't particularly heartening either...
The problem is when a beating gets you attempted 2nd degree murder and 20 years in jail, while someone pulling a shotgun on you.... gets to charge the other person with theft of said shotgun.
The problem is the disparate set of charges that are leveled when a white person commits a crime and when a black person commits a crime.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I'm amazed to see two fundamentally different viewpoints where both sides genuine cannot understand what the other is saying:
1. He was unjustly attacked without legal cause.
2. He was a punk, refusing a reasonable request.
Personally, I go with option 1.
If it's so reasonable, then it should be made into a law, yes? The city obviously knew they were wrong (no deal otherwise). Sure, he could have avoided the costs - but it was wrong. The stores and police don't like those rules - Great! They can get 'em changed!
To the people who like option 2: Great! Go get the law changed! Till then, stop whining about him using his legal rights.
I am a bit disappointed the city didn't get a bit of a spanking. A little reminder is good for everyone now and again.
In fact, if it happens again it will be an easier win. This time he can argue that it is not a simple mistake.
Fight Spammers!
As much as I detest racism and bigots and racists, people are allowing idiots like Sharpton and Jackson and the news media to deceive them. The position they are taking is "you let some white kids go for hanging nooses in a tree, but you imprisoned some black kids who beat up a white kid".
While I'd be up for beating the hell out of any little snotty racist asshole that would hang nooses in a tree in an attempt to intimidate an entire group of people, I have to acknowledge the facts. And these facts are that:
1) These were unrelated incidents that occurred FOUR MONTHS APART.
2) Hanging a noose in a tree is not the same as beating someone up and sending them to the hospital.
3) The legal requirements for charging a youth (not an adult) with a non-violent "hate-crime" is far higher than charging a youth for assault and battery.
So we need to establish that these two events were NOT RELATED. So stop using the results of one to justify the desired results of the other.
Now, after we have done that -- let's look at what reportedly happened that landed these black kids in prison: The white kid was at a gas station and felt threatened by the black kids. So, instead of leaving the scene to avoid a conflict, he went to his truck, pulled out a shotgun and then returned, where they promptly beat his stupid ass.
Now, if some hick went to his vehicle and came back to me with a shotgun (especially in an area where I felt intimidated and threatened routinely because of my skin color), I would surely defend myself by beating his ass and disarming him before waiting to see if he intended to blow my fucking skull clean off my spine.
So should the kids be released? I believe so. But not because of ANYTHING relating to the supposed hypocrisy of the noose-tree incident.
if a guy just keeps walking when asked for a receipt at the store exit, how in your world does a store prevent anyone from shoplifting?
it doesn't make any sense to me. if you are asked for your receipt, just show it! what exactly is the big deal!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's great that he's settled with the police department. But what about Circuit City's cumuppance?
expandfairuse.org
What do they achieve by checking the receipt?
In my experience, they look in the bag of items you've just bought, but you only get that at the checkout. If you're shoplifting, won't you have earlier hidden the stolen goods somewhere else?
You go into the store, you are now a potential shoplifter. There is no (good) way to tell if the person leaving the store is in fact a shoplifter or not. The store has a choice - they can treat everyone as a potential shoplifter or not. That is pretty much the limit. Notice I'm not saying they can treat everyone as a shoplifter-in-fact, just a potential shoplifter.
You go to a donut shop and they are unlikely to check your bag on the way out. You go to a store where they sell tiny, valuable items and they are very, very likely to check your bag on the way out.
The other alternative is all merchandise is locked away and the store simply fetches stuff from the locked-away-room upon request. Some places operate this way today because of theft. Jewelry stores have a slightly different approach to the same problem, but it is all about small easily-stolen items of high value.
Face it, the US is a den of thieves. Shoplifting in many places runs to as high as 10% of the patrons. This means that there are so many actual shoplifters each day that they have to do something about the problem. If people didn't steal there would be a lot less security. Do you think the store likes spending money on cameras, theft deterrence systems, receipt checkers and the like? Do you think they are doing it just to hassle people?
if you couldn't just SHOW YOUR DAMN RECEIPT and have a nice day!
in your world, it seems anyone can shoplift without any fear of consequences
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
To me this guy came across with a very cavalier and arrogant attitude. It seems to me he is just some 20-something with a bone to pick. He was looking for a fight. Playing dumb and not cooperating with police really makes them angry and then they start looking or creating reasons to arrest you.
Although I see where he is coming from, all he had to do was show his damned receipt. Big deal, you make a smart ass remark to the poor sap that has a job at Circuit City and you get on with your day.
I wouldn't call this a victory either. He got his charges dropped and lost a few thousand dollars and the headache of dealing with the burocracy, lawyers, cops etc. A victory would have been showing your receipt and spending the time as intended, stress-free with his family.
This was no Rosa Parks incident people.
"if this person is not cooperating then they have something to hide"
If a person replies as AC, does that mean they have something to hide? Or does it mean that there's an expectation of privacy in going about your business.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
With the first link, the chain is forged.
and you aren't allowed to use force on someone who refuses, why can't anyone shoplift without any fear of consequences?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that's the ONLY way to disprove or prove shoplifting
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You must be thinking of a different CTS. I don't remember him ever making sense there. He has in fact mentioned several times there that he intentionally trolls as well, so you can safely take everything he says with a grain of salt.
.... in a 'wholesale' grocery place, costco and bestbuy has the practice that there's this guy standing at the exit of the shop and will examine people's receipt and make a marking on the receipt. I wonder if it is blatant violation of civil rights. Somehow I never heard there's any similar incident in here.
i like your style. however, comparing some lazy guy at work wasting time commenting on slashdot with someone spending$ 7500 instead of showing a receipt is like comparing an orange to the moon in terms of proportionality. yes, they are both round, but one is HELLUVA bigger than the other
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
so it cost yah 7500
down the road now that you know you were right and would have won would have been worth millins perhaps AND youd have set a precident for others NOT to have this done to them.
Instead you allow them with this kinda practice to continue illegal YES ILLEGAL ACTS.
I know i am a victim of such things myself.
maybe one day ill tell my storey.
I just feel people like this that whine about there familly being brought in are cowards.
You sit down with your familly, you explain what the "bad men are and may do" get rid of what ever gay lawyer you had and get one with balls.
remember 20% of 5 million is what MR lawyer?
and yah think its not about money well it is BUT it is also about curbing and stopping bad practices and you have to make hte amount large enough that it hurts them and gets press.
donate half to several charities
finish that mortgage and put a trust away for the kids
Take a damn vacation and rest after all THEY as jerks put you through.
You mean manslaughter for #2.
SIG: HUP
Beautiful, beautiful post.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
you've successfully used the same logic social conservative idiots use against gay marriage: if you allow gay marriage, then people will marry dogs and dead people and children
uh... no, socially conservative retards, because people can tell the difference
why do social conservative retards think gay marriage and interspecies relationships are the same? because they are hysterical twits. they are using panic and fear rather than logic and reason
in the EXACT SAME WAY, you propose a bullshit slippery slope, proposing to me that a rent-a-cop stopping you at the store exit is the same as a strip search. that people honestly can't tell the difference between those two scenarios
so congratulations, you have replaced logic and reason in your words with a hysterical wall of fear and paranoia
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if i grab something off the shelf, and head for the exit, what better way is there to confront me than to ask for a receipt
i am all ears as to your vastly superior wisdom
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
First...I agree that the charges were too harsh.
However, hanging a noose, or displaying swastikas, last time I looked, were not crimes. Physically beating someone, yup..that's a crime. If the person HAD been beaten worse, yes, maybe the harsher criminal charges, but, from what I hear that he wasn't hurt that badly, as you related, no, the charges were too harsh.
But, while displaying emblems, or symbols that may offend others may be distasteful at times, it is not illegal. Freedom of speech pretty much trumps freedom from being insulted, or offended otherwise, it isn't free expression.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How about someone with 2 prior battery convictions?
Who already had the charges reduced pre-trial?
http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS/70915030
anyone can shoplift, without any fear of prosecution, and no one will stop them
in other words, you are completely out of touch with reality
because, apparently, store rent a cops stopping shoplifters is a sign of the coming fascist armageddeon, somehow
(!?)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
or you could do it the easy way: "show me your receipt please" (smacks forehead)
exactly why is doing it the hard way better than doing it the easy way, and why would ANYONE have a VALID reason for not showing a receipt?!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I see his point and also pity him for his naivety. I wonder if he HAD indeed stolen the item, how would the store manager and police officer responded differently? A real thief would have acted in the same manner as he, and so then how was the store manager and police officer supposed to know this? I know this isn't the actual point being debated but some context and understanding could go a long way.
I guess a subtle but differentiating factor could be in what each party's intentions were. I agree that he (mike was it?) may have done nothing wrong, but it seems obvious that he was inviting trouble, whereas the others were just doing their job. Yeah, so they may not be experts in regards to the law... but it wasn't their INTENTION to violate his rights either. In some aspects, it could seem that THEY were the victims in a needless encounter in a grey matter that could all have been so so easily avoided. Aren't there better things worth your effort?
"Would those jewish kids deserve 'attempted murder' when the bigot walked out of the hospitol hours later with less damage than most people involved in a car crash?"
I'd say that has far more to do with whether they attempted to murder him or not, and nothing at all to do with how much physical damage he sustained.
The charge isn't contingent on the physical damage done, so why bother to mention it?
I'm not sure I know what the heck you mean...
As far as I know, there is no such thing as a non-violent hate crime in the US, at least not in LA.
I'm assuming you are alluding to the nooses hung in the tree. While doing that can be construed as insulting, and distasteful.....it is far from being illegal.
Displaying symbols or the like, even if it raises the ire of a particular group, is not against the law.
Beating someone physically IS against the law.
Those are 2 distinct issues. I hope we do not turn into countries like the ones in Europe, where it is against the law to say and do things....I've heard that it is against the law to sell nazi era guns, knives or other artifacts over there, like say on eBay. WTF??
I don't agree with hate speech, or much of the garbage any extreme group spews....but, they do have the right to say and display their expression of their beliefs. And it should remain that way. If you cut them off...what's to prevent cutting off less offensive, but more viable viewpoints and ideas? And cutting off a few more than that....etc.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What do prior battery convictions have to do with attempted 2nd degree murder charges? What do you know about the prior battery convictions? Were they similarly exaggerated as the 2nd degree murder task? Considering the current state of affairs, I'm curious about that.
As for charges that were reduced pre-trial - some of the defendants were charged with battery instead of attempted 2nd degree murder. Should they be grateful that a gross injustice had been reduced to merely having the book thrown at them - the adult version of the book, not the juvenile version, as required by law?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Another moral of the story: insecure people wearing an uniform because it gives them a sense of power will fly off the handle if they feel their authority is in any way challenged. It isn't the question of being suspicious, it's the question of threatening the policeman's delusions of grandeur.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"What do prior battery convictions have to do with attempted 2nd degree murder charges?"
Did you really just ask that question?
Really man, you're embarrassing yourself.
How the hell was this AC post modded as insightful?
It's somewhat humorous, and rather sad, that whenever your sort wants to attack the ACLU without exposing your own authoritarian leanings... all you can do is criticize them for not doing enough.
'your sort'? Aren't you making a lot of assumptions about him based on a post that made no mention of his political views? He is absolutely correct in his observation that this wasn't as 'hot' of a topic for the ACLU. By 'hot' he means something that would garner media attention. The thing is, often that attention is drawn by the ACLU getting involved in the first place.
This case was important, not because of the receipt refusal, but of the police officer's reaction. Granted the ACLU doesn't have unlimited resources, but even a slight assistance on their part, even the rumor that the ACLU would get involved might make the city a little more cautious.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Note to self: Showing up at this guys house in a nice blue uniform with a good plastic badge == obtaining getting his social, drivers license, maybe even some cc numbers. Seriously, not that long ago, NY state had issues with carjackers dressing up as cops, putting blue flashers on their dashboards, and pulling people over on highways, then shooting them and stealing their cars. Aside from the fact that cops themselves can be crooked, there's always the danger that the nice man asking for your ID is just pretending to be a cop. Despite this, most cops get really annoyed when you ask them for ID, badge number, etc. The way I see it, they deserve a little of their own back. All of that is of course mostly irrelevant, the really important point is that we don't have to show ID because we live in a free country, if we did have to show ID, it wouldn't be a free country, and when the cops try to act otherwise, they need to be sued, as a reminder of how far their rights go.
"What do prior battery convictions have to do with attempted 2nd degree murder charges?"
The charge was reduced pre-trial.
Prior convictions are taken into consideration in sentencing.
Violation of probation.
"As for charges that were reduced pre-trial - some of the defendants were charged with battery instead of attempted 2nd degree murder. Should they be grateful that a gross injustice had been reduced to merely having the book thrown at them - the adult version of the book, not the juvenile version, as required by law?"
According to Louisiana's Children Code, if someone is 15 or over -- Bell was 16 at the time of the incident and Beard was 14 -- and they are charged with one of a list of specific charges -- they must be tried in the adult justice system.
Yes, so "set the kid free" like all the signs say...
I have a better way to handle this problem when it happens with Circuit City (or other store):
When asked to show receipt:
1. Refuse.
2. If pressed, hand them the bag, but not receipt.
3. Pull out cell phone. Call your credit card company and dispute the charges from Circuit City.
4. Circuit City will be hit with extra credit card charges.
a. Charge for post-auth/sale transaction on credit card.
b. Charge for dispute.
c. The lost time working with you.
5. They can always contest your disput since they have a credit card swipe and signature. But you can just rebut with you never received your product. I would keep the receipt just in case.
In the late 90s I lived in brooklyn and had several encounters with their officers. No amount of yes sire/no sir changes their demeanor. They a bullies who see nothing wrong in harassing law abiding folks. I was happy to see that two of the officers who had on more than one occasion given me an unnecessary hard time were found guilty of drug trafficing related offense back in 2000.
Unlike Righi, I am certain the cop in question was a bad cop. Instead of protecting this mans rights he knowingly arrested the man on bogus charges.
It does not surprise me that the plain dealer out right lied about the outcome of this story. The paper has been printing half truths and biased stories for years. I often wondered, if they print mistruths about Howard Stern what else are they lying about?
what is the rationale for the store doing it the hard way? why can't the store just ask everyone for a receipt at the exit, the easy way? what is exactly wrong with that?
because, what is the rationale, ANY valid rationale, for refusing to produce a receipt?
i simply can not understand why anyone would have a problem with that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The point is that we should not have to justify ourselves to anyone, period. The police are not our masters, the government is not our master. We are each, our own master; this is what Liberty means. By requiring us to present any sort of papers or justification for us to be somewhere where we are allowed to be (especially a public place), the government and specifically the police are attempting to proclaim superiority over us. This is absolutely wrong. I applaud Michael Righi for taking a stand and saying, "no." It is sad that he has been dragged through this ordeal. It is sad that, in order to defend his rights as a human being, he was forced to pay out a considerable sum and that his family was so put upon; but this is the price of freedom.
I find it sad that we have become so timid, in this country, that we are willing to tolerate this type of activity by the police. While the officer in question might have thought himself justified in making such a demand, and then enforced his wrongheaded belief with the authority we have granted him , he was wrong and should be called to account for it. We have given the police special powers, because it is necessary for them to do their job. I realize it is a very hard and thankless job; it does not pay well, and is often looked upon with scorn. But, that is something which must be accepted when a person chooses to become a police officer. Along with that, there must come an added level of responsibility to use the powers granted by the people, in an appropriate fashion. Any abuse of those powers, no matter how slight, must be punished. This is were we, as a society, are failing to uphold our rights, and will lose them eventually; we not only allow abuses such as these to go unpunished, we have people who encourage it. The AC who posted the idiocy of, "Why not cooperate?" is complicit is the destruction of our rights. He would give over his personal sovereignty to the police because it is easier. Freedom and Liberty are not easy, they are hard, but they are worth the constant struggle. He may think that having the police rule his life will make him safer, but time and again history has shown us that this is not the case. Governments given absolute sovereignty over their citizens do not long remain benign, and usually lead to tyranny and abuses far greater than the constant annoyance of crime.
Liberty requires that each of us take responsibility for ourselves. This includes accepting a certain level of risk from criminals who may abuse their freedom. This means that you will be responsible for protecting and caring for yourself. In then end, you must ask yourself whether it is better to die on your feet or live on your knees.
Patrick Henry said it best:
I know not what course others make take, but as for me: give me Liberty, or give me death.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
"Aren't you making a lot of assumptions about him based on a post that made no mention of his political views?"
There are no such assumptions. The comment clearly states that those political views are shown indirectly (through faloi's deceptive language) and directly (in faloi's posting history).
I agree with pretty much everything you've said, but I wanted to add some facts about Mychael Bell (one of the teens who garnered the most initial support due to his being a good football player.) Not only was he on probation for a previous violent assault, he committed 3 other violent crimes (two of them assaults, one a robbery of some kind) while on probation. All of this was factored in for the criminal case.
Simply because of that I don't approve of him being released. He's clearly a violent person and the fact that he's a violent person living in a town with racists shouldn't affect his sentence in any way.
please, i beg of you, i beg of anyone, to give me a valid reason why someone would refuse to show their receipt
i beg someone to tell me exactly what the big deal is with showing your receipt at the door, and why this is such a hardship
please, someone, enlighten me as to horrible freedom-robbing hardship of showing a receipt at the exit of a store!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A victory would have been showing your receipt and spending the time as intended, stress-free with his family.
"Freedom isn't free."
A lot of people say this as if they mean it. Not many are willing to pay the price.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The fuckup at the root of all this was that he was pushing his luck with the cop. You have to pick your fights. The fight with the store was a valid one and fundamentally winnable, and he could have made hay out of the whole situation if he had cooperated with the cop's request for ID. His principled opposition to giving ID to the cop cost him the game because the ensuing bogus arrest took center stage and didn't allow him to focus his resources, his family support, and the media attention on the behavior of the store.
ignorance might be bliss...but it sure as hell is not an excuse, nor should it be a reason to let the officer escape unscathed. By doing so, its ...we'll try not to let it happen again...wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Anyone know what happened to the charges he filed against the CC guy? Thought he mentioned something about them being dropped in his blog but didn't go into much details...
Walk with Music;
for the store to assume you are shoplifting?
how can the store tell the difference between you not wanting to show your receipt and a guy who doesn't have a receipt?
are you telling me shoplifters don't exist? are you telling me a store doesn't have a right to stop shoplifters?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Elaborate. Are you arguing the three strike equivalent here? Because that's a whole different ball of wax. Or are you arguing that battery -> attempted 2nd degree murder is a proper escalation of charges? Don't forget - from a legal perspective, once you've served your sentence, you've paid your debt to society. You have the same rights and privileges as anyone else. Finally, shouldn't the circumstances of the crime dictate the charges? I.e., charge someone with attempted murder if they actually tried to kill someone? And charge them with battery if it was a simple beating they administered?
You might want to think your snide comments through. You otherwise run the risk of sounding like the stereotypical tv-addled consumer with all breadth and no depth.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
that one made a purchase at a store?
are you telling me shoplifters don't exist?
are you telling me a store doesn't have a right to stop shoplifters?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"1) These were unrelated incidents ..."
Doubtful.
Hateful people tend to hold grudges, for a lot longer than 4 months
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Exactly. The cops are there to do a job. And it is in appropriate and ineffective to file complaints about the government while the police are trying to get information from you or trying to detain you. The correct audience for your serious complaints is a court, where people can be civil and nobody has to be arrested, tasered, beaten or shot.
They are there to enforce, to the best of their knowledge, the law. If you do not agree with their interpretation, or you think the law is unfair. It is impractical to voice your protest to the police, who lack any judicial powers to actually help you out. If someone is acting suspicious and refuses to show ID that's a right flag, and the cops are hoping you're just some crank, but will want to actually check you out because you could be acting that way because there is a warrant out for your arrest. If the cops have you and just let you go, after you sent up red flags and it turns out you did have a warrant there would be serious repercussions to that officer and his department.
Also I would like to note that for minor things (example: like you didn't like the cop's abusive attitude when he wrote you a speeding ticket). Most of us don't want to invest the time in a court case, especially if we'd lose. But you can file a formal complaint with his department or with the city.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The moral I got from your story is that if I'm caught commiting a crime to cooperate with the cop and hope they'll be lenient. I didn't see anything in there about cooperating, guilty or not.
now THAT'S funny ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Didn't you used to make sense back on k5? What happened?
I think you just answered your own question.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I basically agree with the guy, but here's what I would have done differently: I would have complied with the police officer if he was right or not. Our circuit city shopper could have claimed victory against the Circuit City employee and been done with it. Sometimes it not about being 100% right, but rather being 70% right (and avoiding a lot of sh*t). I think I will try this on my next visit to Fry's or Circuit City or Costco.
This is what you get for being an ass. He didn't refuse to let CC look through his bag because of some grandiose concept of privacy, or even because he was in a hurry. He did it to try to force his will over others. He didn't refuse to show his ID for any legit reason, either, he did it to make himself feel like a big man. And as usually happens in such situations, it came back to bite him. Bottom line: you act like an asshole, you deserve what you get.
Arrogance is not a crime. Failure to comply with basic requests from snarky store managers is not a crime.
Inventing reasons to arrest someone is a crime, and a significant one, and undermines the entire legal structure. Not standing up for your rights for convenience sake (nay, even time with the family's sake) is cowardice and shirking of civic responsibly.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
And if you read the article *real* close, you'll notice that if he is tried for battery, he *has* to be tried as a juvenile. Only anything related murder requires an adult court.
The pre-trial reduction is irrelevant. If I start with a stupid charge, should you be happy that you get a somewhat less stupid charge later?
Prior convictions are indeed taken into consideration. However, a prior conviction for battery doesn't mean that another battery automatically gets elevated to attempted 2nd degree murder. You get to increase the sentence for another battery conviction, but you don't get to charge an entirely different crime.
The same thing goes for the violation of probation. Violation of probation is its own separate crime, with its own sentencing rules. Just because you violate a probation doesn't mean that you get to have an entirely new charge thrown at you.
I'm really curious - do you think that he actually tried to kill the guy?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
With Costco you sign a contract agreeing to let them do the exit check. SO it's different. I go to costco because I balance that against the value I get for my family. If fry's became a membership club I'd stop going.
However, I don't stop at any other stores exit people. I've never been stopped. I just say no thanks and keep walking.
I won't even stop if they have some infernal machine that beeps and whistles when I walk by.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Silly free men, insisting that they not turn out their pockets or submit ID on demand to whomever demands it. What are they thinking? That we are free? Only businesses and police have rights. We have the right to stop making a fuss and go along. Tase him, bro. Submission is freedom, freedom is slavery, kookookachoo.
Don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but Mr. Righi has written that people who question his motivation should read The Fountainhead. That's all I needed to know about his thought process... Anyone who accepts that book as a serious philosophical treatise isn't a very deep thinker and most likely just wants an excuse to go on an ego trip.
If Righi really wants to have more Howard Roarks in the world he should have dragged this whole thing out to the bitter end, family be damned. After all, what's more Romantic and Randian than being martyred for what you believe? Even if what you believe is only that you shouldn't take two seconds to show your receipt at Circuit City after buying a Wii game. Actually, I hear that was originally what Rand was going to write about in The Fountainhead, but her publisher suggested she make it about architects instead...
Now, after we have done that -- let's look at what reportedly happened that landed these black kids in prison: The white kid was at a gas station and felt threatened by the black kids. So, instead of leaving the scene to avoid a conflict, he went to his truck, pulled out a shotgun and then returned, where they promptly beat his stupid ass.
Stupid? He's doing what he should do in that situation. If I'm anywhere and six guys of ANY color start to threaten me, believe I'm grabbing my Sig. Pointing it at them is a different story, however. "Instead of leaving the scene to avoid a conflict" ?? Fuck you. This is a free country and we're allowed to be in public places without being threatened to leave. Nobody runs me off a place I have every legal right to be, period.
Now, if some hick went to his vehicle and came back to me with a shotgun (especially in an area where I felt intimidated and threatened routinely because of my skin color), I would surely defend myself by beating his ass and disarming him before waiting to see if he intended to blow my fucking skull clean off my spine.
Nice racial slur there. I'm assuming you're white, so calling another white kid a 'hick' isn't racist, right? Right. (I thought you detested racists and bigots??)
Also, I very HIGHLY doubt you'd attempt to beat up someone who just pulled a shotgun on you. If you claim this, I'd be willing to bet you've never once stared down the barrel of a gun, ever. What those kids did was stupidity of the highest order. A single mistake could've killed every single one of them, and then they'd be dead instead of in prison.
Also consider that if you had just run over and beat him down without him actually pointing the gun directly at you, well then you just committed assault. Someone having a gun in their possession isn't an immediate threat to your life, and you have no right to do anything about it, other than call the police in the case that the possession is illegal. Attempting to 'disarm' someone is about the dumbest fucking thing a civilian could ever do. Also remember here that the person pulled a gun *because you threatened them*.
Now while I do somewhat agree with the sentiment that these kids were harshly and overly punished, ( Almost, I somewhat do agree that 6 on 1 is more than mere A&B. Perhaps tack on a gang activity charge or something, but it should definitely be felonious. ) I also believe that almost everything you just spewed out of your ignorant little mouth to be complete and utter bullshit.
Have a nice day.
"If I start with a stupid charge, should you be happy that you get a somewhat less stupid charge later?"
Is the new charge accurate?
"You get to increase the sentence for another battery conviction, but you don't get to charge an entirely different crime."
That's not the point; nor is it the point I was trying to make.
You stated that the entire rub of this thing is different standards for white vs. black, with no consideration of previous criminal behavior -- exactly what the thousands of marching people are espousing. Let him free, he is an "angel".
"I'm really curious - do you think that he actually tried to kill the guy?"
I don't know, I wasn't there and I never said the original charge was just. You can beat someone to death. Did he keep hitting the guy after he was unconscious?
I fully support this guy. Some times it is worth wasting your time and money to bring attention to a wrong. It's just a matter of degrees for where you draw the line on what you would be willing to go through. For me, it's definitely not as far as he went.
I do walk past the receipt checkers most of the time. A simple "No Thanks" or "Hi, how ya doin?" without breaking stride is usually not resisted. I've never actually been chased outside the store.
If I was forced to comply inside the store, I would explain that if they insist on searching me they can, but I will return the purchase and cease to shop there.
If I was outside the store, I would keep walking - rather than get in a car where they can block your path. By walking, you give them the choice to give up or assault you to stop your exit. At that point, you would have a much better case against them, and/or the option to physically defend yourself. Also, by keeping yourself and the bags out in the open, you eliminate any claims that you had more stolen items when you left the store.. In the car, they could claim you removed items and hid them.
Obviously, you also need to vote with your dollars. Don't shop at stores that you find offensive, and try to draw attention to their practices.
Your previous crimes can be considered, for example, if you're a violent criminal who has committed another violent crime.
"You have the same rights and privileges as anyone else."
That's wrong, felons for instance can't own guns or vote, unless they successfully petition to have their rights reinstated.
"Finally, shouldn't the circumstances of the crime dictate the charges? "
Sure, and whether you like it or not, one of the circumstances is "he's a repeat offender, he's done it before, he's proven he's willing to use physical force illegally, and will physically contact an individual against their will (battery)".
"You might want to think your snide comments through."
I did. You might want to look into learning a bit about the law before you shoot off your mouth about it.
"You otherwise run the risk of sounding like the stereotypical tv-addled consumer with all breadth and no depth."
Ah, well, wouldn't want to do that. I suppose I should pontificate about legal matters of which I have little knowledge and less understanding, and in so doing reveal a near total ignorance of the law and it's application.
Nah, I wouldn't want to steal your thunder.
If they want to detain me because they believe I'm a shoplifter, then they should come out and say it, flat out: "Sir, we expect you have shoplifted. Please step into this room and allow us to examine your receipt and your bags."
Bet if they said that every time instead of "Can I see your receipt?" the sheepies wouldn't be as willing to roll over.
If you want to make it a law that we have to have our receipt checked, then write your Congressmen. Until then, I have no want to adhere to this practice.
What sense does it make to ask someone for their receipt when they have just walked 10 feet from a cash register to a door? The only thing I could see this preventing is a cashier not ringing up some items for an accomplice.
I have been in a hurry at a Best Buy (I avoid Best Buy now, for other reasons) and walked ten feet to the door only to be intercepted by some employee who asked to see my receipt. I asked the employee if they were suggesting I had stolen something and got the biggest horseshit line. "Oh, no no no sir! This is for your convenience. I need to make sure you got all the items you were charged for today." Other times I have walked past them.
The only time I was actually accused of shoplifting was at a Meijer store, where someone behind us on the way out kept asking where the batteries were. I finally realized they were talking to me. The lady said that I was seen taking batteries, and she would like me to produce them. I told her I didn't even know where the batteries were in the store, and the accusation was ridiculous. Then she said she would have to take me to the manager if I did not produce the batteries. I told her that I would absolutely love to talk to the manager, and she backed down and let me go. I was a kid at the time, but I should have gone to see the manager anyways.
I'm sorry. He may not have been as calm or rational about this as he should have at the time it was transpiring, but in principal I am on his side. I also refuse to show my receipt to the stores when I purchase items. It, in no uncertain terms, pisses me off that as a patron to the ever growing number of stores that do this, I am considered a shop lifter until proven innocent. We don't do that in this country; anyone heard of a little something called innocent until proven guilty? Not to mention the fact that by the time they want to check your receipt the stuff is now yours. Who the hell do they think they are demanding to search me and my property, especially when I have showed no suspicious behaviour, or signs of wrongdoing. Now, if someone working security for the store swears up and down I shoved something in my pocket I'd probably humor him, and let him search me. I'd probably rub it in his face when he didn't find anything, but I wouldn't be too upset. I am all for some security measures to prevent shop lifting, and certainly if the police get involved they can ask you to do a lot more and expect you to carry out their directions. Anyway, I'm just waiting for Wals-Mart to make a wrong move and arrest me with no proof, etc. I certainly wouldn't mine claiming my own little chunk of their fortune. Of course, it probably won't happen since I avoid stores that do this like the plague...
I guess it's a good idea that you posted as AC.
Any abuse of police powers should be fought, period.
Complacency is the first step to losing the rights that our ancestors fought, bled and died for. Do you want to be the one to tell good old uncle GW (George Washington, not the other asshats) that you pissed away everything that all those men and women died for?
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Instead of suing, why not hit them where it really hurts. I go out of my way to not shop anywhere where they inspect receipts on the way out the door.
In some cases, I've been asked for a receipt, and in turn I've asked for a manager to watch/help me return all the merchandise I purchased.
I don't shop at Best Buy, I don't shop at Circuit City. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I don't shop at Sam's Club. I've given up on Fry's Electronics, and similarly on CompUSA.
What do these places have that absolutely everyone is willing to put up with their crap to get? Even for this guy who won a pyrrhic victory; the cost of the suit was paid by the hundreds of walking cash registers who midlessly hand over money for shit they don't need to anyone who will take it.
Hit them where it hurts: don't shop at places you don't like. And tell a friend.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Costco and Kmart ask to see your receipt and inspect your purchases.
Costco's signs say they want to insure that you weren't overcharged
for your purchases (ya, right!). The "inspection" is a joke, the
guy at my costco just takes the receipt, glances at my shopping cart
and then draws a smiley face on the receipt with a high-lighter.
Civil rights came to be codified into law to make sure people would not be subject to unjust duress, such as being arrested for refusing to comply with an illegal request (the cop asking for a driver's licence when one was not driving) after one complained being illegally detained by store personnel.
No, in the United States they are not "entitled to inspect stuff." From what statute are you getting this.? The bag is his. They have no legal authority to inspect what is now *his* property. Their intent to inspect your bag is fucking irrelevant. The law trumps their stated intent. I don't know where you are from, but in the US, corporations don't legislate or enforce law. If the store doesn't like it, tough shit.
Second, the bar for searches is set rather high. It is set at probable cause, *not* reasonableness. Whether it is reasonable or not is irrelevant. *Probable cause* is what matters. This is how US courts have consistently interpreted the 4th Amendment. Refusal to consent to a search is not probable cause, as they can only request a search. This again has been ruled to be the case by the courts. To interpret the law otherwise would make the request pointless and would invoke tautological reasoning. Judges aren't that stupid.
The store in this case presented no probable cause. Therefore, there attempt to restrain him would constitute kidnapping. That's a pound-me-in-the-ass-penitentiary style felony.
Executive summary: If Circuit City or the cop had any legal standing like you claim, the charges would not have been dropped. It's that simple.
The news article says that, in the end, Righi admitted that the police officer did nothing wrong:
Righi himself disagrees, and says in his blog:
So, Righi says that he never admitted that the police was wrong. But it doesn't end here! Further down on his blog, we come across this comment:
So, who's telling the truth?
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
If you go by the third party witness accounts, as the prosecuting attourney claims he did, then it may not be someone pulling a shotgun unprovoked. I didn't find any definite information on the third party accounts, but the version given by the man pulling the shotgun indicates that he was acting to defend himself from a probably threat. And comparing 2 or 3 incidents does NOT establish a pattern of racial bias. I know that even within the same race, radically disparate punishments are given out, and would expect that there would be some cases that look like racism taken separately from all other accounts, even if race itself was never a factor. Attempted murder is indeed extreme, but even that could have been caused by the attitude of the accused rather than skin color. People with authority tend to get very pissy when someone attempts to challenge it. One of many reasons I'd rather keep legal authority to a minimum.
You may not realize this, but Europe still hasn't recovered from the Second World War. The former East Germany, for example, is still repairing the damage left by totalitarian communism, and the countries behind the Iron Curtain are even worse. Many people still remember the whole continent getting burned to bedrock in the war. Add to this a bunch of morons running around and calling themselves "Neo-Nazis" and therefore paying homage to the Nazis who are commonly considered the instigators of the whole mess, and it becomes quite understandable why Nazi memorabilia makes people nervous. Remember also that these laws were originally passed right after the war to suppress Nazi party, many supporters of which survived. Laws, once made, tend to keep on living long past their usefulness.
There is, of course, another, darker reason: revisionism. Nazis did horrible things. So did their collaborators in other countries. It is less-than-honorable period in Germany's and many other countries history, so they'd rather pretend it never happened. I've heard that Japan has a similar problem with its own atrocities, often committed against the civilians of its empire: they simply aren't mentioned in history books.
Of course one might point out that in Europe it is illegal to say or do things but the police won't taser you for it, while in the USA it is legal to say or do things but the police will taser you for doing or saying them anyway.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Mod parent up. Excellent point.
You used up all your mod points on little old me.
So you must be one of the people who said something that was wrong and I called you on it.
maybe just show your damn receipt? and get on with your day?
Everyone draws a line at different place.
- This guys preferred an arrest than showing a receipt.
- Many women stay silent after a rape.
Reading your comment we all know in what category you stand!
you are nothing but a little bitch.
IMO, it's because the moderation system kinda sucks, and people want a way of giving props to people that they like, without either having to wait for mod points, or (if they happen to have mod points) having to choose between commenting and providing feedback.
Most other modern discussion systems have a way of providing feedback, or at least of tracking posts that you like (Metafilter's "Favorites"); Slashdot doesn't, and reply-posting is as close as it gets.
Slashdot is in some areas far superior to any other discussion board I've used -- its threading, for example, is miles better than the flat forums of MeFi or Fark, easier to use than K5's, and more functional than Digg's -- however there are a few things that there's a social demand for which the system doesn't provide (like being able to say 'hey, nice post') and so you get a lot of one-line comments.
Um. The guy with the shotgun and the guy who got beat by the six are not the same, at least not according to Wikipedia. They're two separate incidents. The beating that is the focus and result of the "attempted 2nd degree murder" charge (that was reduced) happened at the school. Just thought I'd throw that out there. They didn't beat up the guy with the gun -- they just took it from him.
So, who's telling the truth?
Do you have a habit of asking questions with obvious answers?
Not to mention you can be charged with almost anything in court, jury can acquit, ask for consideration of a lesser charge...defense can contest, unless he is incomptent of course...
There's a problem with solely making this black v. white and it is hit on the nose here:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/284511.html [kansascity.com]
I wonder what Ohio law has to say about this old common law idea.
I wonder how different this discussion would be if it was a small Mom and Pop shop instead of a big cooperation.
The best thing he could have done would be to turn around and return the item he bought after they demanded to see his receipt. If everyone did this, they would stop asking.
It's against Visa/Mastercard's policy for merchants to ask for ID. They even have online complaint forms where you can complain about a business. A merchant asks for ID, they can get hit with a $50,000 fine or have their contract terminated.
Which I think is BS, since it's the merchant that also has to take the hit for a fraudulent transaction.
so you may be asked for your receipt
people rape
so you may be asked for a semen sample
3. OMG! the usa is becoming a fascist state, because of what a rent-a-cop does, blah blah blah...
You may feel fine sucking the dick of a rent-a-cop doing the bidding of his chosen overlords, but some of us have self respect.
Grow balls. Live like a free man.
According to the Cleveland paper, he "agreed that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting him after he refused to show his driver's license."
Mr. Righi is outraged about this: "I never said such a thing and would never say such a thing.". He points to the release he signed as proof.
The release, however, seems to disagree. It says quite plainly that "all parties mutually release each other of all claims".
In other words, not only does the City drop its charges against Mr. Righi, but Mr. Righi cannot claim that the the police offer did anything wrong.
It's a shame that Mr. Righi apparently did not read or did not understand what he was signing.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
It doesn't matter anyway. If you sign something with something that you intend someone else to understand as your signature, it is your signature, legally. It doesn't matter if it matches your normal signature or is actually your name or whatever. An X is a legal signature. (And, no, you don't need it witnessed, you're signing it in front of someone, you already have a witness.)
It also is supposed to be, according to the CC company, used by the store to make sure you haven't stolen the card, but as they are the ones that clearly don't want to do that, I don't really see how it's any sort of moral victory over them if they don't. It's the store pulling one over on the CC company, not you pulling one over on the store, and their 'victory' means that stolen cards are less likely to be detected.
Incidentally, when I worked at Wal-Mart, I would have been one of the people who caught him. I actually did look at signatures and ask for ID if they didn't seem to match and you'd signed the back of the card, or always checked if someone had written 'check ID'. (If they didn't sign their card, they obviously didn't care if someone had stolen it.)
Granted, I had no 'signature comparison' training, and basically, if it was mostly the same style, I was fine with it. I think I only checked ID a dozen times, not counting 'check ID' people. But it was interesting to watch people realize the reason I was still holding their card and hadn't given it back to them yet was that I was waiting for them to sign the paper so I could glance at them both.
It was also interesting the number of 'check ID' people who expressed gratitude and amazement that I actually check their ID. (Yes, I'm aware, legally, there's no requirement even if they write that, but it's common courtesy.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
That's not the way shoplifters work - it's in their pockets, down their pants, etc. And the guys checking receipts at the door aren't looking in those places, just in the bag.
The REAL reason for that guy at the door who looks in your bag and checks your receipt is to monitor the performance of the people running the cash registers. This allows them to catch mistakes and put a stop to that old "ring up every other item for your friends" scam.
If any shoplifters are caught it's incidental - they're not looking for shoplifters because they're looking IN THE WRONG PLACE. The "door nazis" are working for the loss control department but they're trying to cut down on losses to internal problems.
Think about it for a few minutes and you'll realize that this is the truth.
Now, just exactly what right do you suppose they have to force you to help them prevent their employees from stealing? What right do they have to detain and / or search you? The store personnel have no police powers and they're subject to the same laws as everyone else. Except for one limited circumstance they can not detain you in any way, and they can not search you - any attempt to do so is a crime. That limited exception is when they see you shoplift an item and continuously observe you carry it out of the store without paying. In that situation they can detain you until the police arrive. They have to call the police immediately and can not interrogate or search you.
Each time I see this topic replied to with "just show them the receipt, what do you have to hide?" comments it points out a real problem in our society. Why should you blindly obey and comply with a request to perform an illegal search of your person / possessions by an employee at some retail store?
Suppose someone set up a checking station on a busy sidewalk and asked to search the purse of every passing female. That's not right, is it? But what they're doing at the store is no different.
So if you feel OK with helping the store management monitor their employees and don't mind the offense against your basic constitutional rights - go ahead and let them look in your bag and check your receipt. But if you don't feel that this is the proper course of action then feel free to say "No, thanks" and walk right by. If a store employee makes an attempt to stop you and touches you in the attempt, go right ahead and sue them. Call it assault, or unlawful detainer and make them pay. If they call the police - be nice to the officer, he's just doing his job. Keep in mind that he's not there because you were leaving the store, the person in the store that called him said you were shoplifting. Once he's seen that you're not stealing anything he'll tell them to let you go. Don't make the officer's job harder; just remember to add "false criminal report" to the store's list of offenses and make them pay even more.
Remember, the descent into fascism is paved with passive agreement to corporate control over our lives. You might not be able to stop it, but we can slow it down a little by not giving in to these attempts by retail stores to seize police powers.
Yes.
You gang up 6 to one on someone just because they did or said something you don't like then yes you deserve to go to jail.
BTW my uncle helped to liberate one of the Nazi death camps. So yea I really hate Nazis but a crime is a crime and getting a gang together to beat up one person is a crime.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Assuming the Mr. Righli's self comments are accurate to the situation, I'm impressed by his personal dedication to protecting civil liberties, and saddened that he had to quit prematurely due to the realities of life. I mean no personal criticism of him or certainly not to diminish his serious effots.
However, while I can understand and support his choice to not show ID to the policeman, I still fail to understand his refusal to show his receipt and bag to Circuit City. Though he has a principled and legal view on this, it seems wholly divorced from reality.
Practically, if a store cannot inspect your receipt and bagged possessions before you leave the store to prevent shoplifting, the logical solution is to: keep absolutely all merchandise locked up and behind counters, and to not give customers any merchandise until they've paid and are stepping out the door. The Soviets essentially did it this way. It's monumentally inefficient and consumer hostile.
The world is imperfect place filled with imperfect people. Showing a receipt and my bag of stuff is a fair compromise for easy-to-browse and shop stores. And if someone's got a better way that doesn't involve bag-checking, I'd enjoy hearing it.
ShoutingMan.com
It seems reasonable to show a receipt before exiting a store. He was just being annoying about that. He is absolutely correct about not showing I.D. This is not East Germany or the Soviet Union. Yet.
I think, therefore I thought.
Don't you just love the Ross Perot excuse? Get your family into it, then they can sue the city as well for dragging them through the mud. If your family has any sense at all they will recognize this for what it is and fight themselves. They should support you regardless as they're family. It's good you taught the youngest something, too bad it was the wrong thing.
It has been said that those who don't learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it. I supposed the same can be said for those to 'ignore' it or pretend it never happened.
"Of course one might point out that in Europe it is illegal to say or do things but the police won't taser you for it, while in the USA it is legal to say or do things but the police will taser you for doing or saying them anyway."
Yeah...that's a sad what has been happening. But, hopefully (I'm often over optimistic), the publicity on these incidents will help provoke action that will curb this type of behavior by the police. The police often ARE acting with much more force than necessary...and I think it may be due to proliferation of so called non-life threatening weapons. They are much too quick to use them when not necessary.
Like the college student situation the other day. Yes, he was acting a bit of an ass...yes, he was trying to get attention with his stunt...but, the cops went too far when they tasered him...ESPECIALLY doing it to him while he was on the ground cuffed. They are doing a disciplinary investigation on at least one of those officers now....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Its a shame your family issues prevented you from pressing this. There was already a clear legal precedent, you had a clear transcript of the written law. Not only would you have won the case, but you could have in turn sued Circuit City inc. for unlawful imprisonment (preventing you from exiting on your own accord). You could have then sued the city, particularly the officer, for false arrest.
Sadly, as has been stated, the DA basically silenced him with a deal. Real change only occurs when you DO press the issue, and then bitchslap the hell out of the state and company so they learn their lesson and don't do it again. Because you left it where it stood, nothing punitive is going to happen to CC. Their policies will not change, and other people will recieve the same treatment. The city will still ignore its own laws.
Hell, you most likely could have found a lawyer to do it pro-bono so long as you promised to follow through with a civil suit. I applaud your courage, most americans these days would sooner forget their rights than use them. However, ultimately you've cost yourself and a lot of other people money and accomplished absolutely nothing. Your actions are notable for their utter lack of meaning in the grand scheme of things.
ahhhh, much better. :-)
(excellent post, really)
Please stop stalking me, bro.
If it's a hard and thankless job and it doesn't pay well,
By all means, pay them more. BUT then hold them to a Code of Conduct. Actually I bet if you got rid of all of the victimless crimes on the books such as drug possession and prostitution so that law enforcement can concentrate on violent criminals and the theft and robbery of property the number of officers can be reduced while also making it safer.
Why don't you just admit that you don't like and don't want cops
Wrong. We just don't need as many as we have. On a per capita basis the US has the highest per capita prison population in the world. And a good chunk of the prison population is there for victimless crimes such as drug possession. While mandatory sentencing guidelines can put a person convicted of drug possession in prison for life, robbers, murderers, and rapists can get out after serving several years. Strike all victimless crimes from law books then less prisons will be needed to lockup dangerous criminals.
you just better be ready for a society without police officers (make sure you buy a nice gun, and know how to use it).
Most people should be able to protect themselves anyway. But where needed others can help. Instead of passersby passing by they can help a crime victim. "I don't want to get involved" is BS.
Do I have to remind people we are talking about a guy who refused to show his receipt and identification?
Which he was not required to provide. Would you like it if you were required to wear a Star of David on your sleeve? If not why not?
This isn't the American Revolutionary War. Nor is this part of some civil right movement. Give me a fucking break.
Give me a break from tyranny!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson
definitely snobby. we should only fight things that are "worth" spending $10,000 on? What a fucking joke!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Failure to produce ID for a police officer when not driving, copping an attitude and playing dumb when they can sense it isn't exactly a crime either. But it's not going to get you a walk in the park.
It just seems to me there are much better ways he could have handled the situation.
You COULD have let them just search your car, and throw all your belongings outside and leave them for you to pick up, but instead you said no.
Yea. Freedom should be defined by the laziest way out. You should never stand for principles unless it's convenient.
Summary: You're an asshole. If everyone was like you, we'd still be speaking with a British accent, or worse yet, in German. Move to Mexico. You'll like their brand of freedom better. It's more well-suited to your philosophy. You simply don't fight a fight if it isn't worth it. You can bribe your way out of any crime. You should always do what it easiest, not what is right. Mexico is perfect for you.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
of the nearest Circuit City, but I'll never buy anything from them again unless Circuit City publicly apologizes, pays this gentlman's legal bills, and gives his younger siblings complimentary Sony PS3s. FUCK YOU, CIRCUIT CITY ASSHOLES! I'll be buying my electronics online and telling everyone I know your executives are authoritarian assholes.
Freedom is free.
It's completely another to be an arrogant prick, forcing your will onto others for no good reason, other than he's a complete stubborn moron.
Yeap, that door checker certainly was a stubborn moron.
There's a time and place to pick fights and this example is certainly not one of them. Some people talk about banning Circuit City. If I were running Circuit City, I would ban this asshole from ever being allowed back into the store.
Oh, I see you meant someone who stands up for his rights was the stubborn moron. If you really think that then I think you're the one it should be applied to. If people don't stand up for their rights they soon find they don't have any rights.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
Falconthere was no one left to speak out.
Should there be a Law?
Just one problem with that: cops lie, and are allowed to lie. For example, in this case the officer is perfectly capable of lying and saying it was the law that the man had to show ID. If he went ahead and provided ID, he has nothing to go to court for, because he willingly handed over his ID. The only way the officer will learn the error of his ways is if the city has to pay out on a lawsuit, so he gets chewed out for costing the city money.
I for one agree with you. I guess we have to choose our battles wisely. He seemed to be looking for a fight.
And to all those screaming about civil rights. How many times have you refused to show your receipt? Or do you comply so you can just get on your way?
Additionally I'd like to point out that this is truely the worst way to treat customers. The ASSumption being made here is that everyone who tries to leave your store is stealing from you. This ignores all the statistics we have heard all our lives that most retail losses occur either thru normal retail processes (ie doctored refunds) or internal theft. The people circuit city should be paying most attention to are wearing name tags with the circuit city logo.
If I were a thief, I would find a less visible hiding place than in the retail bag (maybe my baggy pants). I once new someone in high school that used to steal small items from walmart by taking the item into the garden center and throwing it over the fence then walking around and retrieving it. Looking inside the plastic bags just means you are lazy and making gestures toward loss prevention while doing nothing except pissing off revenue.
I hate those little twerps at the door of XYZ retailer, that want to look in my bag. I guess I am pretty lucky cause I make a habit of answering "no" when they ask to see my receipt. If they insist, I warn them "If you insist on accusing me of shoplifting, I will return my purchase and never come back." Most times a thinking individual will weigh the value of a hostile attitude toward customers, vs building trust and loyalty through mutual respect.
They need to tell their merchants that. I've been asked for ID several times in a few stores. They check if the signature on the sales receipt matches the card too.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
If the city of Boston had put five seconds thought into it, like oh, every single other city these signs were posted in, there wouldn't have been a problem. Even if they were bombs, they were too small to damage infrastructure and too far away from people to be anti-personal bombs. The cops did their jobs by checking out reports of a suspicious device. They did not do their jobs by seeing that it was harmless and then continuing to freak the fuck out. Note that these had been up for some time in major cities across the country, yet it was only Boston that blew their brains out over a non-issue.
I believe he made some claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He held onto the claim for so many years that, when the truth finally sunk in, he lost it. Now he is an apologist for even the lowliest government official committing misconduct.
Yes, with anarchy, ie without a ruler or rulers. Instead each person is sovereign.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No it doesn't - you must be that judge I argued w/when I didn't want to sit on a jury. The 5th "protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves" (e.g. fifth amendment). There's nothing that states explicitly or otherwise that another person, viz. a juror, can't weigh this unwillingness against them.
They are there to enforce, to the best of their knowledge, the law.
No, police are there to investigate crimes. And they aren't there to enforce a law they pulled out of their ass.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The problem is that the stores treat everyone like criminals throughout the buying process, and then when they leave, the store hassles them yet again. It would be much more efficient and less hostile at this point to implement the method that you mention and not hassle customers while they shop.
For example, I have bought two items at Best Buy recently and was irritated by the methods they used to protect their merchandise.
First, I needed to buy a copy of Office 2007 for work. When I got to the shelf, there was a huge display about the benefits of Office, but the shelves were empty. I asked one of the peons if they had sold out, and she told me that she just had to get one from the back. Almost ten minutes later, she came out with what I asked for. I asked why she had just wasted ten minutes of my life, and she responded that they had lost thousands of dollars of this product in the preceding weeks. How is that my problem? It's fairly obvious that employees are doing the stealing here - If the cashier doesn't deactivate the magnetic strip (and a big percentage of the time when they do), the alarm goes off when you leave. So it has to be employees giving them to friends after deactivating the strip, or walking out the back with them. Best Buy hiring thieves shouldn't affect my shopping experience.
Second, I went to buy a digital camera. I spoke with the peon and told her what I wanted. She proceeded to unlock a cabinet to get the camera. I took the box, and since I needed to buy one other item, I started to walk away. She stopped me and said that I needed to pay for the item right there and not up front. I asked her why, and she said to prevent shoplifting, essentially accusing me of trying to do so. This was a digital SLR in a decent-sized box, and I was wearing shorts and t-shirt, so I asked her where I could possibly put it. She just smiled and said sorry, you have to pay here. So I told here to hold it and I went to find my other item. About five minutes later, I returned, and wanted to pay for both items. So she unlocked the cabinet again to get the camera. I asked why she had to lock it up, and she said that she couldn't leave it out, ever. So I paid for both items, and she put them in a clear plastic bag (as opposed to the yellow ones) and physically sealed it with adhesive on the bag, then attached the receipt to the bag, making it extremely obvious that I had paid for whatever was in there. I went to the front to exit, and guess what? They wanted to see my receipt and inspect the bag!
How much more Soviet can you get?
I just buy stuff online now and make sure FedEx delivers it. Too many items with a high value get "lost" when you send them via UPS.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
Yea, what's really cheap is to roll over and die.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Did you really just equate "showing your receipt upon leaving a retail store" with death?
(PS: Refriend me.)
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
'your sort'? Aren't you making a lot of assumptions about him based on a post that made no mention of his political views?
It' wasn't just the one post he read, he wrote "Looking through your other posts, you're obviously no friend of civil liberties. A cursory glance shows you arguing in favor trial-free detention of non-Americans. Why your thinly veiled propaganda gets modded up is a mystery to me."
FalconShould there be a Law?
How did the cop know Michael Righi has a driving licence?
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you:
Carter v. Kentucky
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
He talks about the need to show a drivers license to walk through a parking lot. He wasn't walking through a parking lot. He CALLED THE POLICE to come deal with HIS PROBLEM. Part of the police dealing with his problem was for them to identify him. He refused to provide identification. That's impeding the progress of a police investigation that HE ASKED FOR. That's against the law, and the officer showed him that in writing.
Further down, he claims he was arrested for not proving his "right to exist". As if a driver's license was proof of any such thing, or that the issue at hand was his "right to exist".
Of course the store has the right to inspect bags as they leave. It's their property. They have the right to ask you to leave your incoming bags at the front, too. Neither means that they are accusing you of anything. If you don't like their policy, don't shop there. Simple enough.
This guy ought to be arrested for wasting the police and court's time by being a deliberate jackass.
to minimize the danger that the jury will give evidentiary weight to a defendant's failure to testify... Note the inference that the jury might well give such weight, which danger is to be minimized as opposed to prohibited.
Don't forget - from a legal perspective, once you've served your sentence, you've paid your debt to society. You have the same rights and privileges as anyone else.
Actually this isn't true, at least for felony convictions. Felony ex-cons loose their right to vote. They can petition the state's governor to reinstate the right to vote but the governor doesn't have to do so.
Finally, shouldn't the circumstances of the crime dictate the charges? I.e., charge someone with attempted murder if they actually tried to kill someone? And charge them with battery if it was a simple beating they administered?
That's how it should be however prosecutors will sometimes reduce a charge because they know there's a chance they will lose if it goes to trial, which looks bad on a prosecutor's record. And sometimes a defendant will plead guilty to a reduced charge because they feel they will loose if it goes to trial as well.
Should there be a Law?
Either they haven't told their employees or they are ignoring the policy. I think it's a bogus policy, and merchants should be able to ask for ID as a basic measure to protect themselves, so I don't complain. If the card company doesn't like it, they should be the ones to eat a bad transaction.
However, if the merchant asks you for ID and the merchant is a prick, I wont have a problem ratting them out. For example, earlier this summer I stayed overnight at a casino's hotel for a concert held in their auditorium. I gave them a credit card number when I reserved the room, and paid with a check when I got the keys. The next morning they charged my card anyway. I had to call them twice and was this close to sicking Mastercard on them (they asked for ID when I paid with plastic when we ate at their restaurant) when they refunded my money.
"Better, perhaps, because the latter's only protects against shoplifters who clandestinely add an item they didn't purchase into their shopping bag,...."
Right, because that minimum wage till-jockey would never collude with their friend to incorrectly or not at all ring in several purchases. Or that same minimum wage till-jockey will always correctly do it just because otherwise.
Focusing on the single person is the wrong idea. This is part of a larger strategy to catch idiot cashiers and larger groups of thieves, as well as people who happen to be shoplifting by themselves.
Did you really just equate "showing your receipt upon leaving a retail store" with death?
For ease, yes. I don't know about you but to me it'd be easier to die than to live as a child that needs to have the government control me. I know it's not the state that is saying they want to see the receipt, in this case it was a store employee. However I find it easier to not shop at the store, than to put up with this.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Look at it from the cop's point of view, if this person is not cooperating then they have something to hide.
Except that obviously wasn't the case here. Asserting your legally protected rights is NEVER an admission of guilt. Unfortunately, uneducated toerags like yourself and the police officer in this case don't believe that's the case.
I can see that there is a fine distinction there, but I do think the intention is to remove the inference of guilt based on silence, while realizing that the juror may still do it anyway. The problem being that there really is no possible way to completely remove any such inference from the mind of the jury, even though it is not something which they should take into consideration.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
And sadly, it's extremely typical of how minor criminal charges are handled. The first line is usually the cop, whose job amounts to little more than hired muscle for the state; entrance requirements in terms of education are pretty low in most areas, and cops barely understand the law themselves, instead adopting an attitude of "arrest first and let the courts sort it out later".
Combine this with absolutely zero options or oversight from the citizenry and you already have a recipe for disaster.
A cop will therefore hassle a citizen based on a combination of hazy understanding of the law, bad mood, and whether or not he approves of the citizen's attitude. The charge is usually, in the grand scheme of things, fairly minor, but enough to cause a serious headache for the victim. For many things, an arrest will be involved, along with jailtime, bond money, and the embarassment of having to call friends and family to get you out, not to mention the retrieval of whatever confiscated or impounded property -- and the money involved in getting that back.
This is justice in America.
Your court date will roll around and you'll plead not guilty. A trial date will be set, meaning you'll have to schedule your life around that, and try to get a lawyer to help. The average person isn't expected to fully understand the law, because it's so nuanced and convoluted, which is why defense attorneys with years of specialized training exist. The average person is expected to fully abide by the law he doesn't understand, though, which may suggest a problem with the system, but nobody will question it during this process.
On your trial date you'll speak to some self-important prosecutor or solicitor who acts on behalf of the government. He'll treat your minor case like it's the crime of the century. Depending on your demeanor he may offer a deal of some sort, which usually entails you pleading guilty to a somewhat lessor offense. What he probably won't tell you is that if you reject this offer, and make him go through the hassle of an actual trial, he'll push for the maximum possible punishment the law allows, regardless of any circumstances up to that point.
This is justice in America.
If you take his deal, you've just pleaded guilty to an offense you may not have even committed, and is probably something so stupid no one should care even if you did do it, but you're intimidated into the plea by his legal jargon and the fact that, as an average Joe, you don't have the time, money, or resources devoted to fighting it. You'll pay a few hundred dollars in fines and be on your way, with an arrest record, a criminal history, and completely out the hundreds you spent for the bond, the fine, the impound, the attorney, and anything else. The state will pat itself on the back for a job well done for cleaning up the mean streets of dangerous scum like you.
If you don't take his deal you'll be put on trial. For minor offenses you may not even get a jury of twelve average Joes who will sympathize with you; the state has found a loophole and called this an "administrative matter", meaning you'll get tried by a judge, who will claim to be impartial but is on the state's payroll and has a vested interest in making sure things turn out in the state's favor, not to mention his clouded view of every person who appears before him as a criminal.
The judge will ignore everything you say, and your attorney will be mostly powerless since the time for deal-making is over and all he can do is try to object to the prosection's evidence. There will be little evidence to which he can object, though, since for most minor offenses there aren't any significant witnesses or material bits of evidence. Nothing but the policeman's word and charge on the books, often, and this will be taken as wholly sufficient to pronounce you guilty, whereupon you'll pay a huge fine, face possible jail time, and be in worse shape than you had you just meekly submitted instead of trying to assert your rig
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
You're talking about two different crimes, so why should the punishments be the same?
If you read about the shotgun incident, it seems plausible that pulling the shotgun was an act of self defense. A SINGLE white student was confronted by a GROUP of black students, including some of the same black students later involved in the beating. According to the white student, they yelled at him and began chasing him, and he ran to his truck to get his shotgun. Now maybe that's not right, but it IS undisputed that he was alone facing a group, and the group involved some of the same people who beat up another white student.
When you say he "pulled a shotgun" on the black students, you make it sound like the situation was reversed and he was just wielding his "white power" or whatever. But unless more details are revealed, it's definitely plausible that the situation was self defense.
There is NO plausibility that the Jena 6 beating up, again, a single white student can be construed as some simple crime. Think about it... six people beating up one person. Does that sound like an innocent schoolyard fight? No it's obviously a very serious crime. So suggesting that both were just "a crime", which implies crime of equal severity, and that only race was the reason for the difference in outcomes of the shotgun incident and the Jena 6 incident is dumb.
Umm, maybe the prior battery convictions let you realize that he isn't an innocent school kid who was provoked into fighting and the whole thing really isn't a big deal? Everybody's saying "Oh HOW could it be attempted murder? It's just a schoolyard fight!" but with that information in conjunction with the fact that the victim was beaten until he was unconscious... it's pretty obvious that he is a violent person and it's conceivable that it was more serious than a simple fight.
He should have challenged the manager with a choice: insist he show the receipt, and then he would return the item. Then, after he had shown the receipt, walk back into the store and returned the item purchased.
Its receipts, not reciepts.
Its "i" before "e" except after "c" of course!
... if you end up not changing a damn thing? This was so disappointing. Do you really think the police or the city are going to do one thing differently in the future because of Mr. Righi's actions?
"I don't know why I bothered to type this in."
There's nothing that states explicitly or otherwise that another person, viz. a juror, can't weigh this unwillingness against them.
There are many things the constitution doesn't explicitly state. That's what we have the judiciary for. They interpret the law. Griffin v. California was the case that determined the prosecution may not use your refusal to take the stand against you. The supreme court relied on their interpretation of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to arrive at this opinion.
I know you fancy yourself as smarter than the judiciary and the fact that the Constitution article III section 2 gives the supreme court appellate jurisdiction for all cases tried is insignificant next to your formidable intelligence in all constitutional matters. But still, the Supreme Court interprets the fifth in such a way that lack of testimony may not be used as evidence and the Constitution we live by says their opinion counts, yours not so much.
Kudos to the Judge, who was clearly better versed in the law than you.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Note the inference that the jury might well give such weight, which danger is to be minimized as opposed to prohibited.
There is no way to "prohibit" this unless you can read each Jurors mind. I think some 4th amendment nutjob would disapprove of such an invasion of the Jurors right to privacy.
The inference is that Juries are only supposed to weigh facts in evidence, but since they are imperfect human beings they may use facts not in evidence to arrive at a conclusion. This needs to be minimized.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
In Canada, law enforcement has the right to ask for I.D. I carry another I.D. seperate from my driver's license -- the provinical health insurance card. In this situation, I would have presented it, NOT my D.L., or any other incident that does not involve me operating a motor vehicle.
Why? Auto Insurance Rates. I don't want the police entering my D.L. # in some sort of database that the insurance companies have access too, resulting in a totally unjustified insurance rate increase or even a cancellation, for showing something not legally required.
Several kinds of vehicles don't need a driver's license. Bicycles, tractors, construction equipment, etc. You have to obey the traffic laws and provide ID when requested, but refuse to show the DL for the aforementioned reason. (Caution: Different laws may apply for DWI suspects; you can lose your DL even if you rode drunk in the street on your bicycle.)
I drive farm tractors on public roads frequently and if ever pulled over driving one would refuse to show DL, just my other "government" ID. This has also happened to railroad personnell involved in train / car collisions. In such situtaions, has long as RR procedures are met ( whistle blowing, flasing warning lights operating), a car that gets crashed into by a train is historically automatically at fault for the collision, since the railroads have a the right of way and it is the car driver's job to stay out the way of the train (same as running into stationary objects). Police require ID of the persons involved at the scene. Train engineer gives the cops his [car] driver's license for that purpose. Then the engineer finds his own personal auto insurance rates have gone up... because insurance company found out about the incident, for driving a machine that he didn't need a state-issued license for!!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303781&cid=20683099
The local BJ's store insists on seeing the receipt each time I exit the store. The even punch the receipt. Do they assume we are thieves and should we act accordingly?
It's worse than that, they only ask for a receipt if they see you with a Circuit City bag (at least in NJ); ergo the assumption is that every paying customer is a thief. Hardly the sort of act to inspire customer loyalty.
Not sure I entirely agree.
The store came up with this system in order to cut down on shop-lifting. It's reasonable, but it's not backed by law, and the man took advantage of that.
Maybe the store needs a different system to discourage shop lifting. Maybe we need legislation that supports their current system, not sure how you would craft that.
As for the guy who tasered, he was sure annoying. Certainly he deserved it, but I'm not sure that the law can allow giving assholes the beating they so richly deserve.
The familiy member in question said they wouldn't support his version of the events if it went to court. So far, we only have his version which will obviously paint him as a hero instead of someone actiing suspicious and being evasive when asked to provide ID or show that he didn't steal something. They probably also told him to stop being an egomaniac and take the easy way out instead of dragging the rest of the family through the ringer. Legally right or wrong, the guy still strikes me as an arrogant prick. Maybe one day he'll realize that being a jerk to store employees who don't decide store policy and police officers who are acting on reasonable suspicion is not how you stand up for your rights.
Who else was a president (okay, I'll give a hint - there were 2 of them) that used GW as part of their monogram?
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Couldn't your post have saved some space and bandwidth by just being shortened to:
/. trend (and well all know you're into being a sheep, right? so, go ahead and follow the trend).
I, for one, welcome our new jackbooted police-state thug overlords!
Straight to the point, lets us all know where your nose is, and even fits a
Given that Atha is not a typical last name and Stow is near Cleveland, this has a pretty good chance of being correct.
Atha, Joe & Jamie
4447 Stow Rd
Stow, OH 44224-1844
(330) 688-3614
Well, I guess they could ask people without a bag for a recipt - but who would give out the recipts that you didn't buy anything? I'm rather sure they cannot search your person if you do not have a bag and recipt...
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
ACLU Bustcard
There's one like it for photographers, The Photographer's Right. It's based on the Bust Card. It's recommended they carry it with them because a lot of photographers have been stopped and questioned if not have had their cameras taken while out shooting since 911. One student photographer at the college I was attend then was questioned while working on an assignment for a class. So naturally this became a big topic in the photo classes. Some made commends they didn't want to go out in public to shoot.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If they had simply said that they did believe he may have tried to shoplift, what would they have to lose? Would he have then needed to show the receipt, or did he have another nifty trick up his sleeve?
My only guess is that he would have to wait for the police and then ask to see evidence against him, and maybe counter-sue for harrassment later if it could be proven that there's no evidence.
By the way, anyone know if this applies to Canadians as well?
Your request for documentation sparked my curiosity, so I went looking... After half an hour of searching the 'net, it seems to be the case that Larry Craig has never mentioned homosexuals either in Congressional debate or in any publication. He has of course voted along with most of the Republican party and part of the Democratic party, against the best interests of homosexuals, but it looks to me like depictions of him as a hardcore gay-hater are quite inflated.
:-).
He's most likely just another "good ole boy" who is willing to sell the rights of gays down the river in exchange for some bubba votes back home and some mutual back scratching from his GOP colleagues. This makes his outing less of a story, and makes him less of a tragic villain. Probably so many exaggerations are flying around because we like to hear a good dramatic story, and the reality of the situation isn't all that engaging.
Not that homophobia in Congress isn't a bad thing, and not that he didn't participate in it with his votes, but Larry Craig wasn't at the center of it, and he was never Jerry Falwell's right-hand man. Maybe the next scandal will be more titillating
My truck is like a series of tubes.
Jesus, grow a pair, why don't ya?
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Yes, read his blog. He states that he's done this several times before, and he knew what they were going to do. I'd have a completely different attitude if this guy innocently ran into the situation, but he did not.
Ok, sorry about my attitude then.
I wonder why he started it. People don't typically just start something like this on a whim.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If having 'something missing' is all the evidence they had, they'd be laughed out of court. If they haven't got probably cause - Someone actually SEEING HIM TAKE SOMETHING - they have no case, AND no right to stop him. C'mon, people, learn your freakin' rights, and TAKE THEM!
You are an idiot, like many, many, depressingly many people in this thread.
HAND
Except that obviously wasn't the case here. Asserting your legally protected rights is NEVER an admission of guilt. Unfortunately, uneducated toerags like yourself and the police officer in this case don't believe that's the case. I have, on more than one occasion, flat out refused to even give my name to the police on the grounds that asking for my identity without probable cause fell under unlawful search and seizure. Basically told them that the only way I would provide that information was if I was under arrest, and since I was not under arrest, then I wasn't going to give it to them. Of course, they then suggested that maybe they could arrest me, but when push came to shove, there wasn't any valid reason for them to do so.
I had absolutely nothing to hide, I just don't particularly feel that the police should be allowed to go around asking me for my name when all I'm doing is exercising free-speech rights and protesting on a public sidewalk. It's the principle of the thing, and it's high time that American citizens started standing up for our rights while we still have them.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
According to his own account (since that's apparently all there is), this guy chose to make a scene that ended up inconveniencing his entire family. What a jerk! How nice of him to finally consider their feelings. I seriously question this guy's rational. He claims this wasn't the first time, so if he waited he may have been presented a more considerate time to stand on principal. Again, what a jerk!
More questions than answers:
* Where's the evidence that any of this happened exactly as he claims?
* How does Mr. Righi's account stack up to others?
* What's Circuit City's account of these events?
* What's the Police's?
* What about witnesses?
* A prosecutor committing extortion is a serious charge! Shouldn't Mr. Righi report this to the authorities rather than blab about it on his weblog?
* Why donate $5,197.23 to the ACLU? Doesn't he realize that's pocket change compared to the money they extort from small towns freely displaying religious symbols, a First Amendment right.
* If he believes so much in the ACLU and their cause, why didn't he just call them up? Surely they would've fought his case for him pro bono. Again, I question this guy's rational.
Until I hear more from the other side, I have no reason to believe this guy's whining or that any of this happened the way he recounts. I almost feel sorry for all the suckers that actually gave this whiner their money.
If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Righi's rights were actually in danger of being violated, I'll still think he's a whiny jerk, but at least then, I would feel obligated to help him.
I couldn't agree with you more... except on one little point.
There is, of course, another, darker reason: revisionism. Nazis did horrible things. So did their collaborators in other countries. It is less-than-honorable period in Germany's and many other countries history, so they'd rather pretend it never happened. I've heard that Japan has a similar problem with its own atrocities, often committed against the civilians of its empire: they simply aren't mentioned in history books.As a foreigner now living in Germany that also has a lot of contact with Japan, I can tell you you're half right. Japan does indeed seem to practice revisionist history in in it's schools and general attitudes. Germany however, I can assure you, does not. Most German schoolchildren know FAR more about the second world war than school children in any other country. They are taught about the horrible things done by horrible people, and they are taught about the great things done by great people. I would actually hazard a guess to say that it's LESS revisionist than elsewhere in the world. How many stories of greatness, goodness and heroism do you hear about the GERMAN side of world war 2? Yes, terrible things were done, and I would not and will not defend Germany for any of these terrible things... but I am more than ready to applaud the great men and women that were there and did amazing things.
On the other side of the same coin, how much do Americans and British learn about the atrocities committed by the allied soldiers during WW2? Such as gunning down groups of German prisoners because it's easier than taking them with you and processing them? Soldiers doing horrible things is neither a recent phenomenon nor ever only one-sided.
I've gotten slightly offtopic here I'm afraid. To get back to my main point, no, Germany does not practice revisionist history. It is not proud of its past, but it realises that one of the best ways to stop it happening again is to teach about it. Yes, it is illegal here for me to goose-step down the street waving a swastika on a flag and yelling "Heil Hitler"... But not because people want to suppress the memory of it - simply that they understand how dangerous words and actions can be - especially when there are still people alive today that remember when it happened. I would not be surprised if, in 50 to 100 years, those laws no longer exist here in Germany. (If Germany as a country still exists rather than a "state of the EU", but that's another topic!)
The vast majority of people under the age of 35 have an attitude that basically says, "Yes, our country screwed up. Yes, they did horrible things that are inexcusable. BUT, can we please just get over it now and move on? Don't forget it, but stop focusing on it and realise that there's more to Germany than events from 60 years ago.". And I agree with them - shall we hold modern America responsible for mass slavery of Africans? Or shall we hold Australia responsible for treating the aboriginal people like animals and shooting them for sport? Or shall we hold Spain responsible for the Spanish Inquisition? All of these are longer ago, that's true, but at some point, you just have to move on.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
From TFA "there were wires attached to a battery that actually lit up"
She controls the technology of Edison! SHOOT HER!
He didn't do it in 'publications' or in Congress. He did it in his campaigns, every time he's been asked about rumors he's gay.
However, yes, at least he's not an insane hypocrite running around proposing restrictions on gays. And I think we can assume the 'I'm not one of those horrible gay people' claims were based on the fact he actually is and was in denial.
He's not, say, Vitter, who found it necessary to protect marriages because he was visiting hookers.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Oh, and he deserves props for, back in 1994, not supporting an Idaho voter initiative to ban gay marriage. (Among other horrible things on it.) It didn't make any different, it was for the voters to decide, but he (mildly) came out against it.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
[quote]Stupid? He's doing what he should do in that situation. If I'm anywhere and six guys of ANY color start to threaten me, believe I'm grabbing my Sig. Pointing it at them is a different story, however. "Instead of leaving the scene to avoid a conflict" ?? Fuck you. This is a free country and we're allowed to be in public places without being threatened to leave. Nobody runs me off a place I have every legal right to be, period.[/quote]
You are an idiot.
Feeling threatened is not an excuse to leave the scene, go get a weapon and return to the scene. In fact, you are obligated under law to withdraw from a violent confrontation if it is at all possible. You are the type of gung-ho redneck idiot that gives the rest of Americans a bad name. "He done gave me a dirty look -- I'ma go get mah gun!".
If you feel threatened and have no means of withdrawing from a situation, you can take various actions in your defense and claim it as "self defense". What you CAN NOT do is wander off to get a weapon and then return. You are making the situation worse and you are no longer acting in self-defense, but antagonizing and provoking the situation, just as this kid clearly did. This kid WANTED a confrontation. They didn't threaten him. He just said he FELT threatened. "Feeling" threatened isn't an excuse to whip out a shotgun on someone.
It's unfortunate that there is a large swath of our society that spews ignorant bullshit like you do, but it surely does exist.
If the accountant can write AND sign checks, what would stop writing checks to the bogus business run by their spouse? If the cashier doesn't get checked, what would stop the cashier's spouse from pasting the UPC barcode for a box of diskettes over the UPC for a 700 MB disk drive (to later be sold on eBay)?
Sure, eventually the inventory or cash balances aren't going to match - and some sort of twice-checking will have to be implemented.
So would you shop at a place that made you go through the register twice? Would you shop at the place where everything over $100 dollars was purchased through a slip of paper with the barcode (and then at the door, an inventory clerk brings the item to you from the warehouse (which still needs twice checking, in case the inventory clerk is the thief))?
My point is: protecting against theft from insiders is generally implemented by forcing the insiders to collaborate against the anti-theft system. If you can figure out a better way to for stores with expensive items to protect themselves, I'm sure the stores would love to hear it.
Because the alternative is to just let the theft happen, and raise the price of the goods to cover the loss. The honest people then subsidize the thieves.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
I was in the Cosco today for the first time ever, and saw signs that said
"In the interests of making shopping safer for everyone, please allow us to search your bags for security reasons".
On the way out, there is a guy with a namebadge proclaiming him to be "Fred" under a sign which reads "You must present your receipt and bags for inspection prior to exiting the store".
There is no way in hell I would allow myself to be searched, and I am not a thief. My companion for the day happened to be one of those infuriating "if you have nothing to hide" types, even when I explained that such a search would be a common law assault in Scotland if conducted without consent, and even the Police here are held to fairly strict rules (under PACE) if they wish to search bags or persons without consent. Scary!
Thankfully I know enough about my rights under Scots law, and a fair view of what the police, CPS, and Court would say if I brought an action against a store employee for assault. In Scotland private citizens have the power of arrest, however if the suspect cannot be proved to have committed the arrestable offence he was detained for, the "arrest" becomes and assault and a delictual claim can arise.
Scary times, but I know my rights and will not be cowed by a shop. Further, if I were to find myself in the unfortunate situation this gentlemen did, I would be fully prepared to challenge the matter in Court. Further, it is not a common request to produce a drivers licence here unless you are operating a vehicle. so giving name rank and serial number would have sufficed. Further, the Police have a legal duty to process a report of a recordable offense, even if they think the case has little chance. Further, while the CPS might not consider it appropriate to prosecute the rent-a-cop, private prosecution is alive and well here!
Be on your guard, and know your rights, wherever you may be.
If defending liberty is "liberal", why do conservatives hate liberty so much?
The ACLU doesn't defend liberty. It harasses small towns into forking over hundreds of thousands of dollars to make them go away. Let's really check a list of lawsuits:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2005/10/13/aclu-wackiness/
Please, tell me how freedom is maximized when you have an organization tearing down religious symbols. They don't.
Finally, the ACLU itself believes that WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected
So there, a classic liberal organization - oppressing the majority, and depriving everyone of their right to keep and bear arms.
And, don't even get me started on vouchers, bussing, and other matters. The ACLU has consistenly violated the rights of the majority and their elected officials.
This is my sig.
What if the purchaser purchased an X-rated but legal video game or video, or something else which they were embarrassed about for some reason? The cashier must see the purchase to ring it up, but someone who was embarrassed would reasonably refuse to show it to anyone else they were not legally compelled to, and for arguably good reason, social pressure being what it is.
You may argue that that isn't a "VALID" reason, but this is all about the citizen's privacy, and protecting it. I may very well feel that no-one has the right to know that I purchased 2TB of disks today. Why do you feel that the "security guard" does?
Furthermore, why should showing the receipt be the "hard way". Isn't stopping, showing a receipt, and then having some goon paw through your bag clearly harder and more time consuming than the converse on the face of it? Especially when they have no legal grounds to force or require you to do so.
This is not true -- the expectation of behavior in private establishments open to the public is already established in case law and there is absolutely NO legal recourse that enables circuit city to force the customer to produe his receipt. I don't know why you continue insisting along the lines of your wacko theory that people should just do what they're told.
Plus, he was arrested OUTSIDE circuit city, so there goes your theory.
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/