I understand that it is a really juvenile reason to pick a computer animated avatar. I dunno about you, but I stopped drooling over animated/drawn characters (or even prefering to look at one gender versus the other) somewhere around 14 years old.
You should also understand that it's possible to engage in conversation without being condescending or using straw men. "Prefer to look at" != "have a sexual fixation on."
I myself have seen people say people who play women in EVE online as being some kind of degenerate
And then you must have a real problem with birds eating your garden because you then break out an army of straw men:
So the grammatically-challenged, obviously teenage and sexually-challenged writer of the summary thinks it's his inalienable, god-given right to hit on anything with pixellated boobies, and finds the very idea of people role-playing in a role-playing game to be degenerate. Perhaps he shouldn't be such a slavering mess of inadequacy that he feels the need to flirt in a role-playing game with any avatar that approximates female and then be disturbed when the controlling player isn't.
Um, bullshit. But it is quite hilarious when feminazis take some perceived slight and then go off on a hypocrisy binge by attacking someone's maturity and sexuality.
Yes, I've read it. It says that the merchant can detain with PROBALE CAUSE. Some guy leaving the store refusing to prove he paid for merchandise and getting into a waiting car at the entrance in my opinion IS probable cause.
NO IT IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD. Otherwise you have NO right to be free from searches. Cop asks you if they can search you. You say yes, you can't complain about it later because you gave consent. You say no and that's probable cause? Just how stupid are you, really?
Simply asking to see a receipt is NOT A SEARCH.
Of course it is, moron. The receipt at this point is your property. Demanding to see your receipt at that point is no different from demanding to see your Social Security card in your wallet.
You didn't seem to read to the end of the section on shopkeepers privelege in Wikipedia did you? First it says "a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as he has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property".
I guess unbelievable stupidity and illiteracy go hand in hand. I went ahead and bolded the stuff you copied but obviously failed to read. For the merchants to suspect you of shoplifting, they have to observe you actually trying to shoplift. Putting stuff in your pockets. Going through a self checkout and obviously not scanning the 37" TV in your cart.
Second "The common law shopkeeper's privilege has been superseded in most states by so-called shoplifting statutes that allow merchants, their employees and agents to detain suspected shoplifters for investigation, recovering merchandise, or summoning the police".
Which require them to observe you trying to shoplift. We've backed this up with logic and links and you have only been able to respond with your steadfast determination to bend over and grab your ankles. Put up or shut up, fucknut. Show some proof that merchants can treat refusal to show receipt as probable cause. Or FOAD.
that it is Microsoft. A soon as they get more than 15% market share in anything (got forbid higher like with the Ipods), they start pulling stunts and tricks to lock-in people, hardware, devs.. Steve Jobs makes Bill Gates and Ballmer look like open source zealots.
Holy super atomic hyperbole batman! The iPhone has been out for four months and hasn't come close to 1% of the phone market, so it's a wee bit early to be calling them monopolists. Would your ass like to speak up and make any other predictions while you are at it?
2935.041 Detention, arrest of shoplifters; protection of library, museum and archival institution property.
(A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes set forth in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity.
Refusing a search is not probable cause. Never has been,never will be. Here's info on shopkeepers privilege, longstanding common law on what merchants can do with suspected shoplifters. Note the section where it says that merchants do not have the power to search customers. Or you can look atshoplifting or loss prevention policies.
Finally, you can suck on this nice little bullshit sandwich you've insisted on making. Suck it long, suck it hard, you little ankle grabbing bitch.
So, you're bitching about how the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd amendment, and then give a link complaining about the ACLU supporting a guy who doesn't want to be bodily searched without cause?
Before he left the store they asked him for the receipt - he was still inside at this point.
Once he had the receipt, the merchandise was his, and the *only* thing CC could do was ask him to leave.
He also tried to hop into a waiting vehicle. This is now probable cause for them to assume that he had stolen something and broken the law.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I was the biggest idiot on the planet. When people buy stuff, they generally take it out to cars in the parking lot of the store. And if someone is driving with them, that someone will frequently drive up to the front to pick them up.
This gives them the right to detain him
The hell it does.
but they do have the right to ask to prove he didn't steal anything.
The hell they do. It's obvious that you have no idea WTF you are talking about. If you RTFL, you'd know there was already case law on this. CC was completely in the wrong, and so are you.
No they cannot b e tackled (assault) or otherwise physically restrained. But I can block the doors and I can stand in front of your car. Both of which the store did legally.
Try it, and then you'll be the one asking for donations. For bail.
I'd say the store did absolutely nothing wrong and they had every right to ask for the receipt. It's their store and their policy.
Again with the bullshit about "policy". I can open a store and make a policy that any attractive woman over the age of consent has to blow me before she leaves. Obviously, there's policy and then there's what I can actually enforce. Demanding to check receipts and bags at the door is no more enforceable than demanding blow jobs.
You echo my point. The ACLU is an organization that mostly sticks to liberal issues!
If defending liberty is "liberal", why do conservatives hate liberty so much? And no, I did not echo your point, you incompetent boob. The NRA is far larger and far richer than the ACLU, is devoted purely to gun rights, yet does jack to provide legal assistance to gun owners like Maye or Randy Weaver. WTF?
And then you really echo my point.
Sorry, my bad. Your comment was so dumb that I mentally added a few words so it would make sense. When groups sue to block development projects, they do so based on laws like the Endangered Species Act, which is based on the commerce clause. And what environmental suits has the ACLU been involved in, exactly? Google for "environmental suit ACLU" turns up stuff like the group looking into possible law enforcement abuse or a SLAPP suit.
Instead, you've conjured up this lie that "commerce" is everything to get a practical end.
I can refuse service to whomever I like and I can make policies how I see fit.
You can make whatever policies you want but that doesn't make them legal. Once the customer has paid for the merchandise, it's theirs. Not yours. And private citizens do not have the right to detain and search other private citizens. The store can ask to see receipts, but they cannot demand them. Deal with it.
I was waiting for someone to come in spouting the tired old bullshit about the ACLU and the 2nd amendment. The ACLU depends on donations and pro-bono work.
Just why, exactly, should the ACLU expend limited resources on gun cases when one of the largest and most powerful lobbying groups in the U.S. is devoted purely to gun rights?
And why do wingnuts cry over the ACLU not taking gun cases, when the NRA doesn't lift a finger to actually defend gun owners?
Let me see the ACLU sue to block environmental and other legislation because such legislation is a violation of the commerce clause.
Hey genius, most of those regulations are based on the commerce clause.
Sorry about that. I really meant something along the lines of somewhat-frivolous lawsuits.
Ah. It's all good, baby.:) If a case is bogus, I fully support aggressive reimbursement of attorneys fees. What I don't want is what some other countries have, and that is loser pays all costs. The only people who would sue would be those who can afford to lose, and big companies can afford to lose a lot more money than J. Shmoe who makes $25,000 a year.
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.
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.
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.
It's a big deal because they have not right to demand that of you. I'd just look the door nazi in the eye, tell him to go ahead and get his manager, and if they insist on looking at my receipt I'll go ahead and show it to them - right before I take that $1500 plasma TV back into the store for a complete refund.
It is almost impossible to create a balanced system where people can easily sue the state (encouraging them to clean up their act), and yet not encourage frivolous lawsuits.
Um, no. Frivolous lawsuits get kicked out of court, with prejudice (so they can't be brought again). Many of the "frivolous lawsuit" cases you hear in the media aren't frivolous at all, they're reported without relevant facts so citizens will be outraged and support "tort reform", which is far more about shielding special interests from responsibility than curbing frivolous lawsuits. The McDonalds' coffee lady is a perfect example of this: she didn't sue because she dropped coffee on herself, she sued because McDonalds knowingly kept it at dangerously high temperatures and she was burned to the bone.
Also, if one side in a case has no merit, the other can ask for reimbursement for attorneys fees, like some people have done with RIAA lawsuits or when the ESA has a violent video game ban overturned.
What part of merchants have no right to search your bag or detain you do you not understand? What part of cops not having the right to ask for your ID if you aren't operating a motor vehicle do you not understand?
If you want to be a good little ankle grabber, that's your business. But if you expect other people to grab their ankles, you can go fuck yourself, you incompetent shit.
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.
Whoops, hit submit instead of preview. I was also going to add that this is a good way to recoup attorneys fees on frivolous cases, without having to worry about paying for your lawyer plus a team of $500/hour lawyers, as the AC pointed out below, if your case has merit but the preponderance of the evidence goes against you.
Other countries have a better system where if the initiator of a lawsuit was completely wrong, then they have to pay or something like that. I think that is a better system.
You can do that in the U.S., it's just not automatic. If the oppositions case is bogus, you can ask for attorneys fees, like what some people do with the RIAA suits and the ESA does in suits against states with violent video game bans.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that it is a really juvenile reason to pick a computer animated avatar. I dunno about you, but I stopped drooling over animated/drawn characters (or even prefering to look at one gender versus the other) somewhere around 14 years old.
You should also understand that it's possible to engage in conversation without being condescending or using straw men. "Prefer to look at" != "have a sexual fixation on."
Also would this one-sided policy not directly violate anti-discrimination laws? Seems to me it does.
Most likely. Sort of like how bars will occasionally be sued for having a Ladies' Night but no corresponding Men's Night.
That clip was the first thing I thought of too, but you beat me to it. :)
So the grammatically-challenged, obviously teenage and sexually-challenged writer of the summary thinks it's his inalienable, god-given right to hit on anything with pixellated boobies, and finds the very idea of people role-playing in a role-playing game to be degenerate. Perhaps he shouldn't be such a slavering mess of inadequacy that he feels the need to flirt in a role-playing game with any avatar that approximates female and then be disturbed when the controlling player isn't.
Um, bullshit. But it is quite hilarious when feminazis take some perceived slight and then go off on a hypocrisy binge by attacking someone's maturity and sexuality.
When one happened and he did not leave he was trespassing
You have to give someone a chance to leave first. They didn't.
Yes, I've read it. It says that the merchant can detain with PROBALE CAUSE. Some guy leaving the store refusing to prove he paid for merchandise and getting into a waiting car at the entrance in my opinion IS probable cause.
NO IT IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD. Otherwise you have NO right to be free from searches. Cop asks you if they can search you. You say yes, you can't complain about it later because you gave consent. You say no and that's probable cause? Just how stupid are you, really?
Simply asking to see a receipt is NOT A SEARCH.
Of course it is, moron. The receipt at this point is your property. Demanding to see your receipt at that point is no different from demanding to see your Social Security card in your wallet.
You didn't seem to read to the end of the section on shopkeepers privelege in Wikipedia did you? First it says "a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as he has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property".
I guess unbelievable stupidity and illiteracy go hand in hand. I went ahead and bolded the stuff you copied but obviously failed to read. For the merchants to suspect you of shoplifting, they have to observe you actually trying to shoplift. Putting stuff in your pockets. Going through a self checkout and obviously not scanning the 37" TV in your cart.
Second "The common law shopkeeper's privilege has been superseded in most states by so-called shoplifting statutes that allow merchants, their employees and agents to detain suspected shoplifters for investigation, recovering merchandise, or summoning the police".
Which require them to observe you trying to shoplift. We've backed this up with logic and links and you have only been able to respond with your steadfast determination to bend over and grab your ankles. Put up or shut up, fucknut. Show some proof that merchants can treat refusal to show receipt as probable cause. Or FOAD.
that it is Microsoft. A soon as they get more than 15% market share in anything (got forbid higher like with the Ipods), they start pulling stunts and tricks to lock-in people, hardware, devs.. Steve Jobs makes Bill Gates and Ballmer look like open source zealots.
Holy super atomic hyperbole batman! The iPhone has been out for four months and hasn't come close to 1% of the phone market, so it's a wee bit early to be calling them monopolists. Would your ass like to speak up and make any other predictions while you are at it?
Show me the law that says owning property allows you to do whatever you want with anyone on your property.
Again show me the law that says a storeowner cannot demand to see the store receipt.
Here's the Ohio state law on shoplifting:Refusing a search is not probable cause. Never has been, never will be. Here's info on shopkeepers privilege, longstanding common law on what merchants can do with suspected shoplifters. Note the section where it says that merchants do not have the power to search customers. Or you can look at shoplifting or loss prevention policies.
Finally, you can suck on this nice little bullshit sandwich you've insisted on making. Suck it long, suck it hard, you little ankle grabbing bitch.
So, you're bitching about how the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd amendment, and then give a link complaining about the ACLU supporting a guy who doesn't want to be bodily searched without cause?
Bhwhaahahhaahahahahahahahahahahaahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You wingnuts should form a comedy troop with Baghdad Bob, you are frikkin hilarious.
That's not quite what happened.
Yes, it is.
Before he left the store they asked him for the receipt - he was still inside at this point.
Once he had the receipt, the merchandise was his, and the *only* thing CC could do was ask him to leave.
He also tried to hop into a waiting vehicle. This is now probable cause for them to assume that he had stolen something and broken the law.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I was the biggest idiot on the planet. When people buy stuff, they generally take it out to cars in the parking lot of the store. And if someone is driving with them, that someone will frequently drive up to the front to pick them up.
This gives them the right to detain him
The hell it does.
but they do have the right to ask to prove he didn't steal anything.
The hell they do. It's obvious that you have no idea WTF you are talking about. If you RTFL, you'd know there was already case law on this. CC was completely in the wrong, and so are you.
No they cannot b e tackled (assault) or otherwise physically restrained. But I can block the doors and I can stand in front of your car. Both of which the store did legally.
Try it, and then you'll be the one asking for donations. For bail.
I'd say the store did absolutely nothing wrong and they had every right to ask for the receipt. It's their store and their policy.
Again with the bullshit about "policy". I can open a store and make a policy that any attractive woman over the age of consent has to blow me before she leaves. Obviously, there's policy and then there's what I can actually enforce. Demanding to check receipts and bags at the door is no more enforceable than demanding blow jobs.
You echo my point. The ACLU is an organization that mostly sticks to liberal issues!
If defending liberty is "liberal", why do conservatives hate liberty so much? And no, I did not echo your point, you incompetent boob. The NRA is far larger and far richer than the ACLU, is devoted purely to gun rights, yet does jack to provide legal assistance to gun owners like Maye or Randy Weaver. WTF?
And then you really echo my point.
Sorry, my bad. Your comment was so dumb that I mentally added a few words so it would make sense. When groups sue to block development projects, they do so based on laws like the Endangered Species Act, which is based on the commerce clause. And what environmental suits has the ACLU been involved in, exactly? Google for "environmental suit ACLU" turns up stuff like the group looking into possible law enforcement abuse or a SLAPP suit.
Instead, you've conjured up this lie that "commerce" is everything to get a practical end.
Straw man.
I can refuse service to whomever I like and I can make policies how I see fit.
You can make whatever policies you want but that doesn't make them legal. Once the customer has paid for the merchandise, it's theirs. Not yours. And private citizens do not have the right to detain and search other private citizens. The store can ask to see receipts, but they cannot demand them. Deal with it.
I was waiting for someone to come in spouting the tired old bullshit about the ACLU and the 2nd amendment. The ACLU depends on donations and pro-bono work.
Just why, exactly, should the ACLU expend limited resources on gun cases when one of the largest and most powerful lobbying groups in the U.S. is devoted purely to gun rights?
And why do wingnuts cry over the ACLU not taking gun cases, when the NRA doesn't lift a finger to actually defend gun owners?
Let me see the ACLU sue to block environmental and other legislation because such legislation is a violation of the commerce clause.
Hey genius, most of those regulations are based on the commerce clause.
Sorry about that. I really meant something along the lines of somewhat-frivolous lawsuits.
:) If a case is bogus, I fully support aggressive reimbursement of attorneys fees. What I don't want is what some other countries have, and that is loser pays all costs. The only people who would sue would be those who can afford to lose, and big companies can afford to lose a lot more money than J. Shmoe who makes $25,000 a year.
Ah. It's all good, baby.
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.
I agree, he was being a pompous ass for not just showing the receipt
Since when does standing up for your rights make you a pompous ass?
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.
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.
Their policy means jack, fucktard. They have no right to ask for you a receipt, end of story.
It's a big deal because they have not right to demand that of you. I'd just look the door nazi in the eye, tell him to go ahead and get his manager, and if they insist on looking at my receipt I'll go ahead and show it to them - right before I take that $1500 plasma TV back into the store for a complete refund.
It is almost impossible to create a balanced system where people can easily sue the state (encouraging them to clean up their act), and yet not encourage frivolous lawsuits.
Um, no. Frivolous lawsuits get kicked out of court, with prejudice (so they can't be brought again). Many of the "frivolous lawsuit" cases you hear in the media aren't frivolous at all, they're reported without relevant facts so citizens will be outraged and support "tort reform", which is far more about shielding special interests from responsibility than curbing frivolous lawsuits. The McDonalds' coffee lady is a perfect example of this: she didn't sue because she dropped coffee on herself, she sued because McDonalds knowingly kept it at dangerously high temperatures and she was burned to the bone.
Also, if one side in a case has no merit, the other can ask for reimbursement for attorneys fees, like some people have done with RIAA lawsuits or when the ESA has a violent video game ban overturned.
What part of merchants have no right to search your bag or detain you do you not understand? What part of cops not having the right to ask for your ID if you aren't operating a motor vehicle do you not understand?
If you want to be a good little ankle grabber, that's your business. But if you expect other people to grab their ankles, you can go fuck yourself, you incompetent shit.
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.
Whoops, hit submit instead of preview. I was also going to add that this is a good way to recoup attorneys fees on frivolous cases, without having to worry about paying for your lawyer plus a team of $500/hour lawyers, as the AC pointed out below, if your case has merit but the preponderance of the evidence goes against you.
Other countries have a better system where if the initiator of a lawsuit was completely wrong, then they have to pay or something like that. I think that is a better system.
You can do that in the U.S., it's just not automatic. If the oppositions case is bogus, you can ask for attorneys fees, like what some people do with the RIAA suits and the ESA does in suits against states with violent video game bans.