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?
They have plenty of ways to minimize shoplifting, ways that do not involve criminal activity like illegal detention. I'd suggest you read up on the matter, but you're obviously more in false dichotomies between "force everyone to show a receipt" and "shoplifter free-for-all".
it doesn't make any sense to me. if you are asked for your receipt, just show it!
If you want to, sure. But if you don't, then they can't make you. And if they try to, then they're breaking the law.
what exactly is the big deal!
The big deal is that they had absolutely no right to detain him.
They can, perhaps, make showing your receipt as you leave a condition of your entering the store and shopping there, if they inform you before the fact and not after the fact
Even that only applies if you agree to it in writing, such as with the member's agreements at wholesale clubs like Sam's.
doesn't the store have a right to stop shoplifting?
Yes. But they must do it in ways that do not infringe on your rights. Asking for your receipt is fine. Attempting to force you to show it is not.
okay: you're obligated to show your receipt
No, you're not. The law doesn't work like that. They can't detain you unless they have a real reason to think you've stolen something, and "He wouldn't show me a receipt" isn't nearly good enough.
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!
And I would suggest that since you, not the people to whom you're replying or the the people replying to you, are the one shrieking about fascism, you're using it as a strawman to avoid addressing the actual issue. In other words, you're lying about what is being said.
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
You are illiterate and/or lying. The infringement of rights did not come from being asked for a receipt, nor did Righi claim that. It came from being illegally detained for not showing the receipt (which he was under no obligation to do).
Sure he could have just showed his receipt. But he wasn't obligated to. The store manager, however, could have let him walk right on out whether he showed the receipt or not, and damn well was obligated to.
Actually, that's not true. Shopkeeper's privilege has been common law for well over five hundred years now.
Shopkeeper's privilege requires a reasonable cause to believe something has been stolen before it comes into effect. Refusal to show a receipt does not meet that standard.
You're putting constraints on a private party (the shop) which ordinarily only hold on government.
No, I'm not. Private parties cannot detain people against their will except under very specific circumstances which were not met here.
He is obligated to disprove the assumption that he's a thief, if he wants to walk out of the shop with his goods.
No he isn't. His goods are his goods. The store gave up any and all rights to them when money changed hands. They can no more search his bags than his pockets if he doesn't consent to it.
(A) A merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, 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.
Note emphasized text. They can only detain you if there is probable cause to believe something was stolen. Refusal to produce a receipt on demand does not meet that standard.
What, didn't you get the memo? It's only okay to stand up for your rights when the stakes are world-shattering. People who stick up for themselves over small matters are all greedy attention whores with notions of entitlement. If you're not actually being herded into the gulag then you're supposed to shut up and play along.
Let's say I walk into Best Buy, pick up a CD without paying for it, and head for the door. Best Buy didn't see me take the CD on its cameras. You're saying theyy can't confront me at the door to verify that the CD is indeed mine?
Confront you? Yes. Detain you? No, not unless they saw you take it and try to leave without paying.
Nonsense. The store shouldn't be able to prevent him from walking out the door without a package: but it certainly can prevent him from walking out the door with a package.
No, not unless they have legitimate reason to believe he stole something. And "he wouldn't show me his receipt" is not a valid reason. He's not obligated to disprove a by-default assumption that he's a thief.
The stores are perfectly within their rights because they are either renting or owners of their property.
They have the right to ask for a receipt. They do not have the inalienable right to have that request honored, and they certainly do not have the right to prevent you from leaving.
If someone breaks into your home and you challenge them on it, does it mean they can have you arrested or even sue you for questioning their right to be on your property? I'm pretty sure you'll say no.
Terrible analogy. Better one: If someone entered your house with your full permission and is now about to leave, does it mean you can block the door and keep him in your home until he's proven that he didn't nick your silverware? (Hint: no it doesn't)
And that's also the case with these stores, they own the right to use their property as they deem fit
As neither the customer nor the stuff he bought is the store's property, that right doesn't mean fuck-all here.
Unless you think that peoples' propety falls under the control of the state, or the federal government, then, technically, you believe in manifest destiny and government control over ALL property, either privately rented or owned.
Nice false dichotomy there. Either you agree with the store's detainment or you're a dirty commie.
Basically, in all the states I looked at, merchants can use "reasonable suspicion" as a defense in a civil suit, and they absolutely have the right to detain, using reasonable force, someone suspected of shoplifting.
I'm aware of that, but "He wouldn't show me a receipt" is not reasonable suspicion that someone's a thief (as you noted yourself). It's not reasonable to assume someone's a criminal until they prove otherwise.
Now, of course, here comes the catch: did CC reasonably suspect him of shoplifting? In reality, no; he simply refused to let them check his bags as they do for everyone. But they can claim that they did suspect him, and make up something about witnessing what they thought looked like him putting something extra in his bag.
They had no right to detain him under the circumstances. Lying about having seen him take something after the fact would not retroactively give them that right.
When it gets to court, they may very well lose, but that's a lot of time and legal expense for the customer to deal with just to prove he was right and the store was wrong.
So what?
The best thing to do is just never shop at CC again, and tell your friends not to shop there either.
The best thing for him to do now, perhaps. But the best thing for him to do right then was pretty much exactly what he did. At no point did he overstep his rights. Note that the "best thing" isn't always the same as the most convenient thing.
Every time one of these stories comes up, there's always a bunch of idiots who claim something to the effect of "But the store has the RIGHT to ask for your receipt". This is true but entirely beside the point. The point of contention is that the guy also had the RIGHT to refuse to show the receipt, and to walk right the fuck out of the store with his newly purchased property. The store did NOT have any right whatsoever to detain the guy.
If you're going to argue against this guy, do yourself a favor: Don't argue the store was within their rights to ask for the receipt. Nobody's arguing with that, and you're a moron who can't fucking read if you think they are. Instead you need to make a case for why they were right to prevent him from leaving, because that, and only that, is what is being contended here.
ACs complaining about twitter does look like astroturfing. MS has enough money to pay a few guys to beat back public opinion on well-known public tech sites. Without facts disputing the current article, it looks like you are just pro-MS ranting against a anti-MS article without any substance.
If there's only one Slashdotter on Microsoft's payroll, it's twitter. He effectively smokescreens legitimate criticism of Microsoft with his childish, myopic blame-Microsoft-for-everything posts and his egocentric belief that anyone who calls him out on his bullshit MUST be brainwashed by/working for "M$". He obsessively catalogs every post made by his "enemies", frequently lies about what they actually said, and conveniently disappears when confronted with inconvenient facts or questions. He does more to discredit "his" side in an afternoon than any dozen pro-Microsoft astroturfers could hope to accomplish in a month.
If Steve Ballmer isn't personally giving twitter a handjob right now, then he's neglecting his responsibility to his company.
Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of register-monkeys and store managers who are mistakenly under the impression that they're legally obligated to follow the ESRB ratings. Also probably quite a few know that they aren't, but lie about it to more easily placate customers who are irate about store policy. "It's the law" goes down more easily than "Corporate said so". The same applies at movie theatres.
As for fines, they may well happen, they just won't come from the government. An individual store might get fined by the parent company, or maybe by the distributor or some other trade organization that's involved in the process. Regardless, the fining power comes from a corporate charter or private contract, not from the law.
As it is there's already laws in a few places (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that can fine stores for selling M rated games to anyone under 17. The fact that this private organization is assigning a rating to something that carries with it a legal burden on the distributer kind of muddies the water as to its required level of transparency.
No, there are no such laws. Several states have tried passing them but they've all been struck down or enjoined from enforcement. Also, they weren't tied to the game's ESRB rating , but to independant standards of violence and sexuality. So the legal burden imposed by an ESRB rating is zero, and any law providing it with such legal weight would not survive a Constitutional challenge anyway.
I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it. Likewise a think the MPAA should also be required to specify how and why it rates movies a particular way.
I see a problem with it. They're private organizations, and their ratings are by nature a matter of opinion. There's no reason anyone should be legally required to justify an opinion. That's a road we don't need to go down.
So, the government is either allowed to make laws in this regard or they are not.
Wrong. They are allowed to make laws in this regard (restriction of speech) when it can be shown that there is a compelling interest to do so. They have tried, and on every single occasion failed utterly, to do so.
You can't say that it's OK to put age restrictions on purchasing arms, which is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution by NAME, but not on video games, which are not mentioned.
I sodding well can. It goes back to the "compelling interest" bit again. And television isn't mentioned in the Constitution either, but good luck passing a law forbidding a minor from buying a season of The Sopranos.
And before you say "freedom of speech", the speech the founders were referring to was political speech, as in, you are allowed to criticize the government. Freedom of expression is not mentioned. For that matter, neither is freedom of commerce.
Try arguing in court that freedom of expression isn't protected by the First Amendment.
The only way a video game can considered free speech is if it's free, as in beer.
Wrong. Video games are protected as speech, period. Excerpts from linked document:
If the first amendment is
versatile enough to "shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold
Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll," Hurley, 515 U.S. at 569, we see
no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and
narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection. The mere
fact that they appear in a novel medium is of no legal consequence.
Whether we believe the advent of violent video games adds anything of value
to society is irrelevant; guided by the first amendment, we are obliged to recognize
that "they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of
literature." See Winters, 333 U.S. at 510. We must therefore determine whether the
County has advanced a constitutional justification for the ordinance's restrictions on
speech.
In other words: 1) Yes, games are speech and 2)if the government wants to restrict them it has to prove that there is sufficient cause for that restriction. They haven't. Ever.
Incidentally, your moronic claim that "freedom of expression isn't covered" is bulldozed here as well.
Also, here is what Judge Richard A. Posner said:
'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"
Sounds to me like HE (speaking for the state) is making the final say, not the parents.
That's his personal opinion, wholly and obviously separate from the legal reasons for the ruling (which I note with no surprise you don't even attempt to refute). You're taking that one excerpt and acting like it's his entire basis for the ruling. That's like watching Gerard Butler kick a guy into a hole on a TV ad and then claiming you've seen 300.
Do you agree that the state should decide when my children can be exposed to violence?
Quit begging the question. None of these rulings mean that. They mean quite the opposite; that the state is explicity forbidden from making the decision. Yet again I remind you: the parent has the power
Alright, First things first. Does the government have any rights whatsoever in limiting what children can do without their parents. This means going into bars, drinking, renting porno's driving, whatever? Does the government have the right? I think they do. And if they do when it comes to pornography and cigarettes, then they do when it comes to video games. Otherwise, I could simply say, "It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's." just like you did. Is it my business if the neighbor's 5-yr old smokes? Is it my business if the neighbor's 5-yr old is selling crack? So I ask again, does the government have any business in our lives. If you say NO, then read no further, you are too far gone to think rationally. If you say yes, then it most certainly IS the government's business!
False dichotomy.
You have a point. When you said, "No, it does not. You do not get to decide games are or are not appropropriate for someone else's kid. Ever." I assumed that you were saying it was the kid's parents to decide. So tell me, is it up to the kids parents or not? Who makes the decisions, the parent or the kid? The judge said it's the kid's decision. Who's decision to you think it is?
No, the judge did NOT say that, nor did any of the other judges who shot down these laws. Stop putting words in other people's mouths. And since you still don't understand, I'll explain again in simpler terms: The parent has the sole responsibility of approving or disapproving the game purchase. That means that if a parent doesn't want Junior buying the game, it's up to the parent - and nobody else - to stop Junior from buying it. ONLY the parent has a right to monitor the purchase, and he is not entitled to the luxury of knowing that the store will do it for him (the store might do it anyway via their own policy, but they're under zero obligation to do so).
Their ability to stand up in court has nothing to do with whether or not they make sense or a good idea. The judge said that they "impede free speech". Really? What "speech" is involved in buying a fucking video game? Besides, as long as the kids got their parent's permission, these laws didn't impede shit! If a parent bought the game, they could play all they wanted. These games were never banned! So tell me, do you really think it makes sense to say that something that is NOT banned somehow impedes free speech?
Yes, actually, selling a video game is in fact speech, just as is selling a book or a movie. Since it's clear that you don't know the arguments that were used against the law are, I suggest that you look them up before deciding that they're wrong; perhaps then you'll see why they have a perfect track record. I'll be nice and give you a starting point as a freebie: look up the phrase "chilling effects".
How can you defend allowing children to purchase violent video games without a parent's knowledge by saying "parents have the final say"? You are contradicting yourself. When these laws were in effect, parents had the final say. Now the kids do. The judge took the parents out of the equation. The judge took the final say and gave it to the kids. I agree that parents have the ultimate responsibility, but that's different than saying "they have the final say". The judge said, "You don't need parents to purchase these games." How does that give parents the final say?
See above. The fact that the parents have the final say means that the parents have the sole responsibility of monitoring the purchase. Nobody else is obligated to do it for them.
Undo burden? "Uh, do you have ID?" Really? Is that really that hard? They already ask for ID for alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets, sinus medicine and even spray paint! What makes video games an undo burden? And it's not even all games, just the ones labeled "Contains violent content. Must be 18 and over to purchase this game". Gee,
The problem is, how do you know its the parents making that decision?
You don't. And you don't need to. It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's.
You either think that this law forbids the USE of these games by minors or you like red herring.
Neither. You simply keep mischaracterizing others' arguments via gross distortion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume you're not doing it on purpose.
Either way, all this law would do is make it so the parent gets to decide if their child should play these games or not. By removing these laws, you are taking that responsibility AWAY from the parents and giving it to their kids!
Nonsense. Parents already have the final say over what games the kids can play without these laws in place (remember, none of them have survived court challenges or even been enforced). Putting the law in place, on the other hand, puts an undue burden onto the government and the retailers to play backup parent. The only thing a parent gains from these laws is a convenience to which they are not entitled.
Uh, I'm afraid you are wrong here. This law would do exactly that! While it is not perfect, it does ensure that kids are not out buying games without parental knowledge. I did stuff my parents didn't know about. Didn't you?
A kid might be able to BUY a game without his parents' knowledge, but he can't PLAY the game without their knowledge. A parent who doesn't monitor what their kid is playing (whether due to laziness or perceived maturity of the child) isn't going to care what games they're buying. But even if that weren't so, the state governments have repeatedly failed to show that there is any good reason why they should keep kids from buying games.
Right! Rational people do NOT ignore scientific research. So if scientific research says that violent video games are harmful to children, then the government is completely within their right to ban the sale to minors, right? OK, how's this:
An early study on the effects of video games on children found that playing video games had more positive effects on children than watching television. A conference sponsored by Atari at Harvard University in 1983 presented preliminary data which failed to identify ill effects. More recent research, however, has begun to find connections between children's playing of violent video games and later aggressive behavior. A research review done by NCTV (1990) found that 9 of 12 research studies on the impact of violent video games on normal children and adolescents reported harmful effects. In general, while video game playing has not been implicated as a direct cause of severe psycho-pathology, research suggests that there is a short-term relationship between playing violent games and increased aggressive behavior in younger children (Funk, 1993).
Because it is likely that there is some similarity in the effect of viewing violent television programs and playing violent video games on individuals' aggressive behavior, those concerned with the effects of video games on children should take note of television research. The consensus among researchers on television violence is that there is a measurable increase of from 3% to 15% in individuals' aggressive behavior after watching violent television. A recent report of the American Psychological Association claimed that research demonstrates a correlation between viewing and aggressive behavior (Clark, 1993).
and HERE:
Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare (see http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.htm l). Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them
No, it does not. You do not get to decide games are or are not appropropriate for someone else's kid. Ever.
If every parent educated their kids, there wouldn't be a need for public schools. Unfortunately, many parents won't take the time to teach their kids to read, so we have public schools and parents can be arrested if their kids don't go.
Irrelevant. There is a compelling interest for the state to provide free education. There is not a compelling interest for the state to intervene in the sale of video games; each and every one of these court cases has seen the state attempt to demonstrate one and fail miserably.
Well, Hell! Since it is a free country, why do we have any laws at all? If I want my kid to ditch school and sell his/her body for cash, I guess I'm free to do so. If I want to put Liquid Plumber in my kids bottle, well, that is not your decision to make!
Strawman argument.
All laws serve a purpose. They restrict freedom for some and at the same time, provide it for others.
These laws do not provide or safeguard anyone's freedom or rights of any kind. Parents already have ultimate and total authority over their kids' gameplay, and nothing the government can do will increase that.
Comparing the prohibition of alcohol to adults is a poor example. That prohibition still exists for children and it is perfectly Constitutional.
Alcohol has proven, objectively demonstratable harmful effects. Video games do not, as every single judge in these cases has noted. I realize you "don't give a shit what researchers say", but they do, as they should. Rational people don't ignore scientific research just because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
As for laws that are designed with good intentions? You mean like the prohibition on slavery? How about the prohibition on hate crimes? What about the prohibition on CEO's raiding retirement funds? All made with good intentions and all successful at making life better for all of us. You need to read the rest of the pages from that history book of yours!
Slashdot Mirror
Sure he could have just showed his receipt. But he wasn't obligated to. The store manager, however, could have let him walk right on out whether he showed the receipt or not, and damn well was obligated to.
No, actually it's proof that it does work, as fixing what the politicians mess up is in fact exactly what the courts are for.
Shopkeeper's privilege requires a reasonable cause to believe something has been stolen before it comes into effect. Refusal to show a receipt does not meet that standard.
No, I'm not. Private parties cannot detain people against their will except under very specific circumstances which were not met here.
No he isn't. His goods are his goods. The store gave up any and all rights to them when money changed hands. They can no more search his bags than his pockets if he doesn't consent to it.What, didn't you get the memo? It's only okay to stand up for your rights when the stakes are world-shattering. People who stick up for themselves over small matters are all greedy attention whores with notions of entitlement. If you're not actually being herded into the gulag then you're supposed to shut up and play along.
That "instant consent" can be instantly withdrawn, though. It's not like a binding contract is being signed.
I'm aware of that, but "He wouldn't show me a receipt" is not reasonable suspicion that someone's a thief (as you noted yourself). It's not reasonable to assume someone's a criminal until they prove otherwise.
They had no right to detain him under the circumstances. Lying about having seen him take something after the fact would not retroactively give them that right.
So what?
The best thing for him to do now, perhaps. But the best thing for him to do right then was pretty much exactly what he did. At no point did he overstep his rights. Note that the "best thing" isn't always the same as the most convenient thing.
If you're going to argue against this guy, do yourself a favor: Don't argue the store was within their rights to ask for the receipt. Nobody's arguing with that, and you're a moron who can't fucking read if you think they are. Instead you need to make a case for why they were right to prevent him from leaving, because that, and only that, is what is being contended here.
If there's only one Slashdotter on Microsoft's payroll, it's twitter. He effectively smokescreens legitimate criticism of Microsoft with his childish, myopic blame-Microsoft-for-everything posts and his egocentric belief that anyone who calls him out on his bullshit MUST be brainwashed by/working for "M$". He obsessively catalogs every post made by his "enemies", frequently lies about what they actually said, and conveniently disappears when confronted with inconvenient facts or questions. He does more to discredit "his" side in an afternoon than any dozen pro-Microsoft astroturfers could hope to accomplish in a month.
If Steve Ballmer isn't personally giving twitter a handjob right now, then he's neglecting his responsibility to his company.
Don't pretend that given an inch, the nanny-staters will hesitate to take a mile.
As for fines, they may well happen, they just won't come from the government. An individual store might get fined by the parent company, or maybe by the distributor or some other trade organization that's involved in the process. Regardless, the fining power comes from a corporate charter or private contract, not from the law.
Wrong. They are allowed to make laws in this regard (restriction of speech) when it can be shown that there is a compelling interest to do so. They have tried, and on every single occasion failed utterly, to do so.
I sodding well can. It goes back to the "compelling interest" bit again. And television isn't mentioned in the Constitution either, but good luck passing a law forbidding a minor from buying a season of The Sopranos.
Try arguing in court that freedom of expression isn't protected by the First Amendment.
Wrong. Video games are protected as speech, period. Excerpts from linked document:
In other words: 1) Yes, games are speech and 2)if the government wants to restrict them it has to prove that there is sufficient cause for that restriction. They haven't. Ever. Incidentally, your moronic claim that "freedom of expression isn't covered" is bulldozed here as well.
That's his personal opinion, wholly and obviously separate from the legal reasons for the ruling (which I note with no surprise you don't even attempt to refute). You're taking that one excerpt and acting like it's his entire basis for the ruling. That's like watching Gerard Butler kick a guy into a hole on a TV ad and then claiming you've seen 300.
Quit begging the question. None of these rulings mean that. They mean quite the opposite; that the state is explicity forbidden from making the decision. Yet again I remind you: the parent has the power
False dichotomy.
No, the judge did NOT say that, nor did any of the other judges who shot down these laws. Stop putting words in other people's mouths. And since you still don't understand, I'll explain again in simpler terms: The parent has the sole responsibility of approving or disapproving the game purchase. That means that if a parent doesn't want Junior buying the game, it's up to the parent - and nobody else - to stop Junior from buying it. ONLY the parent has a right to monitor the purchase, and he is not entitled to the luxury of knowing that the store will do it for him (the store might do it anyway via their own policy, but they're under zero obligation to do so).
Yes, actually, selling a video game is in fact speech, just as is selling a book or a movie. Since it's clear that you don't know the arguments that were used against the law are, I suggest that you look them up before deciding that they're wrong; perhaps then you'll see why they have a perfect track record. I'll be nice and give you a starting point as a freebie: look up the phrase "chilling effects".
See above. The fact that the parents have the final say means that the parents have the sole responsibility of monitoring the purchase. Nobody else is obligated to do it for them.
You don't. And you don't need to. It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's.
Neither. You simply keep mischaracterizing others' arguments via gross distortion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume you're not doing it on purpose.
Nonsense. Parents already have the final say over what games the kids can play without these laws in place (remember, none of them have survived court challenges or even been enforced). Putting the law in place, on the other hand, puts an undue burden onto the government and the retailers to play backup parent. The only thing a parent gains from these laws is a convenience to which they are not entitled.
A kid might be able to BUY a game without his parents' knowledge, but he can't PLAY the game without their knowledge. A parent who doesn't monitor what their kid is playing (whether due to laziness or perceived maturity of the child) isn't going to care what games they're buying. But even if that weren't so, the state governments have repeatedly failed to show that there is any good reason why they should keep kids from buying games.