Aren't the Palin jokes kind of like kicking a puppy at this point? She scared the hell out of me and cost McCain any chance he had of getting my vote (what happened to McCain 1.0?) but it's over now....
Just send in Christian Slater to recover it. It'll only take him a few hours, with the additional bonus that movie footage of the recovery mission will make for a great action movie once the evil John Travolta tries to steal it.
Hey, cut John Travolta some slack. He just wants to get his hands on a thermonuclear weapon so he can give Xenu a taste of his own medicine.
You don't. That's what a lot of people here don't seem to understand.
I'm not a citizen if I left my driver's license at home?
Actually, you aren't a citizen even if you have your driver's license. A driver's license is a license to drive -- it doesn't prove you to be an American citizen. A passport would do that but how many people carry their passports with them while walking around the US?
California. In California a peace office has the right to detain you indefinitely until he can "confirm your identity". If you are not carrying state-issued ID on your person you are required to provide contact information for someone ELSE who can confirm your identity with legal documents. You can be thrown into local jail until that person contacts the police. If you have no ID and refuse to provide contact details you are thrown in jail until you provide contact information. Eventually, you're put in state prison.
None of what you've said suggests that it's illegal to not have ID on you. It suggests that it might be a PITA if the officer decides to be a prick about it but it doesn't suggest that it's illegal to walk around without ID. Indeed, you said "if you have no ID and refuse to provide contact details", which suggests that there is a procedure in place to handle those without ID.
That is an answer. I'm not sure it was to the relevant question.
And it might not even be "illegal". I can only speak for New York but our law reads as follows:
Failure by a licensee to exhibit a license valid for operation under this chapter to any magistrate, motor vehicle license examiner, motor vehicle investigator, peace officer, acting pursuant to his special duties, or police officer shall be presumptive evidence that he is not duly licensed.
So, in theory they could assume that you aren't licensed and arrest you for unlicensed operation -- in reality they'd probably just look your name up in the DMV database (unless you pissed them off). You'll note that the actual law doesn't mandate a specific penalty for failing to have your license on your person.
Of course, if the cops show and decide that you're just being an asshat, you could be in trouble for abusing the emergency line...
How is calling the emergency line when being held against your will "abuse"? If you are attempting to leave a location and another person is preventing you from doing so then that person is committing a crime.
*That* was likely the killing blow, not any overt boycott.
Actually the killing blow was probably the economic crisis and the realization on the part of the American consumer that borrowing against your home to finance a plasma screen TV isn't usually a sound financial decision.
You are welcome to call the police, but if anyone is arrested it will be you, possibly after being repeatedly Tasered.
If I'm tasered by a Circuit City rent-a-cop for the action of reaching for my cell phone I think the next question would be "How many zeros would you like on the check, Mr. Shakrai?"
We have a really good local electronics outfit. They almost always beat Circuit City and Best Buy on price. They don't beat them on inventory but they are usually willing to order stuff for you if you are willing to wait. And they've never once asked to check my bags;)
At warehouse stores you pay a membership fee and sign a contract in order to shop there. Part of that contract is that you agree to show your receipt. This is much different that BB/CC/any store without a membership fee and no up-front contract.
And even at that they still don't gain the legal right to go through your belongings. If you refused the bag check they could terminate your membership -- but they can't produce that contract and force you to submit to a bag check.
To invoke Godwin: I probably would have complicit in the early evils of Nazi Germany.
Eh, I wouldn't make that comparison. I'm all about sticking up for my rights, but there's a huge difference between going along at Circuit City and going along with the people being loaded into boxcars......
You're expecting me to become familiar with Ohio law?
Only if you intend to make statements about it, i.e: "He did something wrong when he refused to show ID to the police officer". If you don't intend to make statements about Ohio law then I guess you don't really need to become familiar with it.
I'd try to find a resource for where it's illegal to not carry ID on you, but any Google search for it is flooded by voter ID requirements.
So in other words you are talking out of your ass and have no proof to back up your claims? Well, at least you were right about one thing: "And I have a feeling I'll get modded troll for this post."
I'm not familiar on Ohio law, but in many places it's illegal to not have some form of ID when over 18.
Too bad, because if you had bothered to become familiar with Ohio law before opening your mouth you would have discovered that Ohio lawspecifically says that you aren't required to hand over ID:
"Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed."
And BTW, just where in the United States is it illegal not to have ID on you?
What you have here is not a violation of any rights, they weren't going to search purses and handbags (although some stores do - but they clearly post that they reserve the right)
I don't think putting up a sign gives them the right to go through my things. At best they could ask me to leave if I refused to let them go through my bags. Of course this is a moot point unless they are going through the bags before you enter the store, because by the time they asked you to leave you would already be on your way out the door anyway.
It's implied consent when you shop at a store like that, and if you don't like it, don't go back.
I'm sorry but it's not. If I put up a sign on my front door that says "all female guests waive the right to refuse to have sex with me" does that mean I can rape with impunity? All they can do is ask you to leave -- but unless they are enforcing this policy when you enter the store (as opposed to when you exit) it's kind of like closing the barn doors after the horses have already escaped.
To think, that guy could have avoided all the hassle, all the wasted time and money, just buy opening the plastic Circuit City bag and showing the receipt.
He probably could have. Some people are willing to give up their rights to avoid a little hassle. I'm not one of them.
Yes, I read where you said the local place beats them on prices. Then why do people shop there? There must be some compelling reasons.
Because Circuit City is on the flashy commercial strip and the local place is tucked away in an old part of town that most people aren't familiar with?
... given the fact that they treat their customers like criminals. Besides which, my local electronics place usually beats them on price -- and there's always online shopping.
No. If you have to attach it to another bill as a rider, then it's probably not the federal government's business in the first place.
Well, you can make that argument if you want but I don't think you'll find much support for it within the halls of Congress. Aside from a few restrictions (revenue raising bills need to originate in the House) the Constitution doesn't really regulate how the Congress can deal with legislation.
I suppose the "blue" states would be happy to do without beef, corn and wheat, never visit a national park like Yellowstone, not have Interstates to move goods, and all the other things the "red" states do for them?
I'm pretty sure that the GP was talking about the imbalance of payments on the Federal level, i.e: for every $1 that California pays the Feds (in income taxes, excise taxes, etc) they only get back about $0.77 in Federal grants/spending. In my state (New York) the imbalance was around $0.80 the last time I checked.
You are talking about goods and services (beef/corn/wheat and national parks) that I'm pretty sure we already pay for. Unless Iowa is just giving corn away in exchange for all those Federal dollars they get?
You can argue whether or not this imbalance of payments is a good or bad thing. It always amuses me though when Republicans argue about "wealth redistribution" -- if "wealth redistribution" is so evil then when can I look forward to my state getting a refund check?
I define pork as any budget line item that primarily benefits fewer than five states. Cut federal taxes and raise state taxes, and let the several states pay for their own pork.
I'm all for that. I live in a rich blue state that could easily manage to come up with the money to maintain our infrastructure and educational system. Can the Gulf Coast States and the Appalachia States make the same claim?
Slashdot Mirror
As long as the rest of the world funds your economy, you DO answer to the rest of the world.
That's a double edged sword. What happens to the rest of the World if the American consumer stops buying your exports?
Wonder if Sarah Palin can see it from her house.
Aren't the Palin jokes kind of like kicking a puppy at this point? She scared the hell out of me and cost McCain any chance he had of getting my vote (what happened to McCain 1.0?) but it's over now....
Just send in Christian Slater to recover it. It'll only take him a few hours, with the additional bonus that movie footage of the recovery mission will make for a great action movie once the evil John Travolta tries to steal it.
Hey, cut John Travolta some slack. He just wants to get his hands on a thermonuclear weapon so he can give Xenu a taste of his own medicine.
Why do I have to carry an ID in the first place?
You don't. That's what a lot of people here don't seem to understand.
I'm not a citizen if I left my driver's license at home?
Actually, you aren't a citizen even if you have your driver's license. A driver's license is a license to drive -- it doesn't prove you to be an American citizen. A passport would do that but how many people carry their passports with them while walking around the US?
Man, THAT is why no chicks come to your party! D'oh!
Is that what I'm doing wrong? I just assumed all the chicks knew I was a /.'er and stayed away for that reason ;)
California. In California a peace office has the right to detain you indefinitely until he can "confirm your identity". If you are not carrying state-issued ID on your person you are required to provide contact information for someone ELSE who can confirm your identity with legal documents. You can be thrown into local jail until that person contacts the police. If you have no ID and refuse to provide contact details you are thrown in jail until you provide contact information. Eventually, you're put in state prison.
None of what you've said suggests that it's illegal to not have ID on you. It suggests that it might be a PITA if the officer decides to be a prick about it but it doesn't suggest that it's illegal to walk around without ID. Indeed, you said "if you have no ID and refuse to provide contact details", which suggests that there is a procedure in place to handle those without ID.
That is an answer. I'm not sure it was to the relevant question.
And it might not even be "illegal". I can only speak for New York but our law reads as follows:
Failure by a licensee to exhibit a license valid for operation under this chapter to any magistrate, motor vehicle license examiner, motor vehicle investigator, peace officer, acting pursuant to his special duties, or police officer shall be presumptive evidence that he is not duly licensed.
So, in theory they could assume that you aren't licensed and arrest you for unlicensed operation -- in reality they'd probably just look your name up in the DMV database (unless you pissed them off). You'll note that the actual law doesn't mandate a specific penalty for failing to have your license on your person.
Did I ever suggest Best Buy as a viable alternative? Personally, I won't shop at either one of them. I'd rather do my business locally or online.
Of course, if the cops show and decide that you're just being an asshat, you could be in trouble for abusing the emergency line...
How is calling the emergency line when being held against your will "abuse"? If you are attempting to leave a location and another person is preventing you from doing so then that person is committing a crime.
True dat. Still a bit of a leap between that and Circuit City though. The Circuit City employees only think they have the authority of the Gestapo ;)
then it's their duty to take one home to make the inventory come out right.
Tough job, but I guess someone has to do it ;)
they wanted over $46 for a 14 footer (all they had). Yeah, f#ck that
For that price you could buy a cheap (but functional) Cat5 crimper tool, some cut wire and ends... and likely still have money left over for beer.
*That* was likely the killing blow, not any overt boycott.
Actually the killing blow was probably the economic crisis and the realization on the part of the American consumer that borrowing against your home to finance a plasma screen TV isn't usually a sound financial decision.
You are welcome to call the police, but if anyone is arrested it will be you, possibly after being repeatedly Tasered.
If I'm tasered by a Circuit City rent-a-cop for the action of reaching for my cell phone I think the next question would be "How many zeros would you like on the check, Mr. Shakrai?"
We have a really good local electronics outfit. They almost always beat Circuit City and Best Buy on price. They don't beat them on inventory but they are usually willing to order stuff for you if you are willing to wait. And they've never once asked to check my bags ;)
At warehouse stores you pay a membership fee and sign a contract in order to shop there. Part of that contract is that you agree to show your receipt. This is much different that BB/CC/any store without a membership fee and no up-front contract.
And even at that they still don't gain the legal right to go through your belongings. If you refused the bag check they could terminate your membership -- but they can't produce that contract and force you to submit to a bag check.
To invoke Godwin: I probably would have complicit in the early evils of Nazi Germany.
Eh, I wouldn't make that comparison. I'm all about sticking up for my rights, but there's a huge difference between going along at Circuit City and going along with the people being loaded into boxcars......
You're expecting me to become familiar with Ohio law?
Only if you intend to make statements about it, i.e: "He did something wrong when he refused to show ID to the police officer". If you don't intend to make statements about Ohio law then I guess you don't really need to become familiar with it.
I'd try to find a resource for where it's illegal to not carry ID on you, but any Google search for it is flooded by voter ID requirements.
So in other words you are talking out of your ass and have no proof to back up your claims? Well, at least you were right about one thing: "And I have a feeling I'll get modded troll for this post."
Just before CompUSA closed, I had a manager and security guard refuse to let me leave the building until I showed them my receipt
That's the point where I would have pulled out my cell phone, called 911 and told the dispatcher that I was being held against my will.
I'm not familiar on Ohio law, but in many places it's illegal to not have some form of ID when over 18.
Too bad, because if you had bothered to become familiar with Ohio law before opening your mouth you would have discovered that Ohio law specifically says that you aren't required to hand over ID:
"Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed."
And BTW, just where in the United States is it illegal not to have ID on you?
What you have here is not a violation of any rights, they weren't going to search purses and handbags (although some stores do - but they clearly post that they reserve the right)
I don't think putting up a sign gives them the right to go through my things. At best they could ask me to leave if I refused to let them go through my bags. Of course this is a moot point unless they are going through the bags before you enter the store, because by the time they asked you to leave you would already be on your way out the door anyway.
It's implied consent when you shop at a store like that, and if you don't like it, don't go back.
I'm sorry but it's not. If I put up a sign on my front door that says "all female guests waive the right to refuse to have sex with me" does that mean I can rape with impunity? All they can do is ask you to leave -- but unless they are enforcing this policy when you enter the store (as opposed to when you exit) it's kind of like closing the barn doors after the horses have already escaped.
To think, that guy could have avoided all the hassle, all the wasted time and money, just buy opening the plastic Circuit City bag and showing the receipt.
He probably could have. Some people are willing to give up their rights to avoid a little hassle. I'm not one of them.
Yes, I read where you said the local place beats them on prices. Then why do people shop there? There must be some compelling reasons.
Because Circuit City is on the flashy commercial strip and the local place is tucked away in an old part of town that most people aren't familiar with?
... given the fact that they treat their customers like criminals. Besides which, my local electronics place usually beats them on price -- and there's always online shopping.
No. If you have to attach it to another bill as a rider, then it's probably not the federal government's business in the first place.
Well, you can make that argument if you want but I don't think you'll find much support for it within the halls of Congress. Aside from a few restrictions (revenue raising bills need to originate in the House) the Constitution doesn't really regulate how the Congress can deal with legislation.
I suppose the "blue" states would be happy to do without beef, corn and wheat, never visit a national park like Yellowstone, not have Interstates to move goods, and all the other things the "red" states do for them?
I'm pretty sure that the GP was talking about the imbalance of payments on the Federal level, i.e: for every $1 that California pays the Feds (in income taxes, excise taxes, etc) they only get back about $0.77 in Federal grants/spending. In my state (New York) the imbalance was around $0.80 the last time I checked.
You are talking about goods and services (beef/corn/wheat and national parks) that I'm pretty sure we already pay for. Unless Iowa is just giving corn away in exchange for all those Federal dollars they get?
You can argue whether or not this imbalance of payments is a good or bad thing. It always amuses me though when Republicans argue about "wealth redistribution" -- if "wealth redistribution" is so evil then when can I look forward to my state getting a refund check?
I define pork as any budget line item that primarily benefits fewer than five states. Cut federal taxes and raise state taxes, and let the several states pay for their own pork.
I'm all for that. I live in a rich blue state that could easily manage to come up with the money to maintain our infrastructure and educational system. Can the Gulf Coast States and the Appalachia States make the same claim?