I agree. In fact I can't believe it has taken this long for a feature like this to become available.
Some asshole steals my car and there's nothing I can do but watch hime drive away? People talk about infringement of rights but where's my right to keep my own stuff?
Sneakers for $75? I got out of that racket when I was in High School. Don't buy Nike's and you can get decent sneakers for $45, you can grab throw away sneakers good for 6 months or so for $10 at Wal-Mart. Leather shoes can be had for $30 from Tom McCan @ K-Mart.
I tried that once - buying a cheap pair of shoes. I ended up with tendonitis in my foot and had to hobble around for two weeks until it cleared up. Threw out the shoes and went back to a quality pair.
I do agree with you that you should always look to see if you are getting gouged. But some things you need to pay more for to get good quality. On the other hand, some things are just massively overpriced simply because of the name and not the quality of the item. Buyer beware.
Your denying fellow brothers in Christ to keep one foot planted in the world of unbelievers and their good graces indicates that you aren't much of a Christian, if any. You place the god of "some degree of acceptability on Slashdot" above your Creator. You're also dishonest, and the very natural way in which you maliciously react when called on it is chilling and telling.
What the hell are you talking about? That made no sense to me whatsoever.
To paraphrase, take the log out of your own eye before you complain about the splinter in someone elses.
Ew, that's where all those backwater people reside, right? People you're superior too.
The geographic location I specified is accurate. The predudice you are implying is not mine, so must be your own.
You don't sound like a Christian either.
Why would you say that (you are wrong, btw)
Does it really matter what people believe how long it took?
No, of course not. People can believe whatever they like. But I stll maintain that their beliefs are so different from mainstream Christians that it should be considered a different religion.
Cool! I didn't know Cuba was a "vast smorgasbord of cool stuff that anyone can just take for themselves any time they please". I'll have to visit and check it out.
Me either. Creationist 'Christians' that believe the world is only 8000 yars old actually constitute only a very small percentage (like maybe 1%) of Christians worldwide, although they are quite vocal and seem much larger. They typically reside in the southern US.
In fact their beliefs are so far removed from mainstream Christianity that I don' really consider them Christians but just a misguided cult.
Your counter arguments are moronic, offtopic and completely misinformed. You have no idea what your real rights are, just what you believe they are. You are not listening to what I am saying and ignore arguments you have no response to so obviously there is no point in continuing this discussion.
And let me guess... While you believe you have no right to ask someone a question who is on your property, you probably are one of those gun nuts that believes that you have the right to blow them away without any cause or provocation. Gee, THAT makes sense.
Based on your communication skills and the sheer idiocy of your arguments, you must be a Republican. Its the only way to explain youre childish ignorance of the world.
You are a complete an utter moron. Go troll someone else.
Where did the idea start that America is just some vast smorgasbord of cool stuff that anyone can just take for themselves any time they please?
Probably around the time Christopher Colombus arrived to America.
Perfect example of what is wrong with the US education system.
Christopher Columbus never landed in what you seem to be referring to as America (as in the United States according to the quote you copied). He landed in the American continent, specifically Cuba. He never actually set foot on what is now the continental United States.
There's a big difference in believing in God and believing that the world is only 8000 years old. God and evolution for the vast majority of the people on the planet are not mutually exclusive.
My next "smart device" if this 9300 becomes awfully outfashioned will be another 9300 like "mini laptop" having a real OS, SDK and Java support. It is not the price, it is the date. It is freaking 2007 for God's sake.
It's a freaking PHONE for gods sake, the last thing I want to do with a phone is program it. Why would I want an SDK, I deal with enough of that shit at work.
Also, I have a problem with a company actively preventing you from doing something protected by law (unlocking a phone is protected under the DMCA).
They're not preventing you from unlocking the phones. But they don't have any obligation to provide compatible software updates either. If your phone is unlocked and it works, then don't upgrade the software. Simple.
You made the decision to modify the phone and violate the warrantly. Then you should have realized that you wouldn't get any future support from Apple, and that includes software updates.
It's one thing to void your warranty and crying that they won't fix your mistake. It's another thing altogether to void your warranty and have them reach out and break an otherwise 100% working phone.
That's not what's happening
The users vioded their warranty by modding the phones. Apple is providing an update under warranty (you dont think they were providing software updates out of the goodness of their hearts do you?) that may or may not be compatible with the modded phones.
The solution is don't upgrade the phone with the new patch - it'll still continue to work. Why would you exepct that your phone would stay compatible after modification?
Really? What if he ran out of the store? Is that then suspicious enough to be probable cause? What if he ran out with bulges under his trenchcoat yelling "You'll never catch me fuckers!" is that then probable cause or do you still insist on they actually have to see him shoplift? Both running and talking are not illegal or against store policy the last time I looked.
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?
The cops actions are not in question here, only the store security guard. The cop in the story did a search that was voluntary. If he refused that search he would have been protected by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment does not apply to the store security guard who, incidentally, DID NOT SEARCH HIM.
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.
Really? So I walk up to you on the street. I ask to see the newspaper you're holding. You say no and keep walking. Apparently according to you I've just searched you and violated your rights. Give me a break. The only search that was performed was by the cop at the end and that was consentual. There was no search performed by store staff.
For the merchants to suspect you of shoplifting, they have to observe you actually trying to shoplift. Putting stuff in your pockets.
Let's say thats true. A woman walks into a grocery store (this actually happened) hides a turkey under her dress and walks out pretending she's pregnant. Noone saw her put the turkey under her skirt, but the staff saw her walk in not pregnant and walk out pregnant. Since she was so obviously hiding something, they stop her and accuse her of shoplifting. According to you again, since they didn't actually see her put the turkey under her skirt, the did an illegal search and confinement and should have all been shot for violating her god given right to walk around with a turkey under her skirt. You're such an idiot.
There's no law against being an asshole. If there were, both the manager and the security guard could have been charged.
Why? They were just doing their job as described and dictated by store policy. That attitude is just like these criminals who hate cops for arresting them. Blame everyone else for your troubles but yourself.
In my opinion the security guard had probable cause to suspect shoplifting due to the guy refusing to show his receipt then leaving and getting into a waiting car near the door. If somewone WAS shoplifting, they would have exhibited the same behaviour, therefore the suspicion was warranted.
Gladly, as long as you admit that a) you have no reason to assert that he was "running" to the car, b) he was under no legal obligation to show a receipt, and c) a demand to see something you are carrying on you, backed by force, is a search.
a) No he was not running - my mistake, but he did not stop when the security guard asked him to either.
b) When did I state that he legally had to show his receipt?? I said it was resonable to ASK to show his receipt. Given that he knew the store policy, he refused to show it when asked and his subsequent behaviour, this gave the merchant probable cause to suspect shoplifting and try and detain him. Thats ALL I said.
c) Again you are putting words in my mouth. What I said was asking to see a receipt is not a search. They were asking for a voluntary search which he refused. No search therefore was performed. If he did just hold up his receipt, then no that is not a search. Often this is just to place a mark on the receipt to show the merchandise has been checked for purposes of warranty returns. If they went through his bags, then yes that is a search.
Look up the legal definition of search. It is not a search if (for example) a cop pulls you over and he looks over the inside and outside of your car while talking to you. A visual inspection is not considered a search - even though is it apparent it is backed by force (he's a police office with a sidearm). Similarly asking to SEE the receipt is not a search.
You were right about the Fourth Amendment, let's see if you can admit when you're wrong.
Do you not find it embarrasing that a Canadian knows more about your rights and laws than you do?
Jesus, how fucking stupid are you? Does it come naturally or do you have to wrk at it?
Here's the Ohio state law on shoplifting:
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.
Refusing a search is not probable cause. Never has been, never will be.
The basis of the case law you point out is all about the fouth amendment. The Fourth amendment does not apply to private persons, only government law enforcement.
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.
Simply asking to see a receipt is NOT A SEARCH. Look up the legal definition of search if you can read you moron. If they insist on rummaging through the bag, then yes that could be a search, but in this case the suspect refused the volountary search so it ended there. The merchant BROKE NO LAW ON SEARCH.
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". In my opionion they had probable cause to suspect he was stealing something. 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".
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.
Are you angry and hostile because of your diminutive stature or your incredibly small penis?
Ohio code states that they have the right to detain upon "probable cause."
Running out of a store into a waiting vehicle and refusing to stop INSIDE the store when asked I'd argue is probable cause.
You can repeat this as many times as you like, but you're still wrong. They had no legitimate cause to suspect him. For crying out loud, they just ACCEPTED PAYMENT from him!
And the guy at the door has no way of knowing that unless he looks at the receipt. He can't possibly be expected to look at and memorize everyone in the checkout, plus the large numbers of people bypassing the checkout because they didn't buy anything. Yes, he just bought something and it is not unreasonable to ask to see the receipt.
Obviosly you have your opinion and I have mine. As you state it comes down to probable cause which I beleive they had due to him acting like an asshole, and you believe they dont'. There's obviosly no convincing you so stop wasting my tme.
Granted, the 4th doesn't apply. The store still had no right to detain him or his family. They should have asked to see the receipt and then taken his license plate number when he refused.
Again, please point to a law saying they do not have the right to do what they did. Despite assertions, I have yet to have anyone give me a law to that effect.
You're an idiot if you think it's not a search just because you consented to it.
How is it a search if they just ask you to show them something? If I ask to see your watch, does that mean I just searched you? No of course not.
Except that this guy didn't steal anything. And the onus is not upon him to prove that he didn't. Paying for the merchandise was his only legal obligation, which he met.
Why would he not take 2 seconds to hold up his receipt? Either because he was hiding something or he was a complete asshole and liked to piss people off. Since the first is FAR more likely (except in this case) they suspected him of shoplifting. They had reasonable cause to suspect him and to try and detain him. Note that they never actually TOUCHED him, so their attempts at detaining him were perfectly legal.
Show me the law that says they cannot stop you and ask for a recept!! Why is it that hard for you to do that if it is not legal??!
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.
Are you insane? That is clearly against the law (several of them). Again show me the law that says a storeowner cannot demand to see the store receipt. Until then shut the fuck up and stop spewing stupidity.
Yes, it says we have a certain right to be secure in our persons, etc. - a right not granted by the government, it is INHERENT. That means you don't lose the right just because you walk onto someone else's property. You didn't address that at all.
Yes I did. The fourth amedment does not apply to private citizens, and it doesn't matter how much you think it should. Here is the cae law that proves it: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invol=109 . Specifically:
The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated (...) This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."
What part of that do you not understand??
You didn't address the point that according to your illogic, we can have our rights violated at any time as long as it's done by a private party. As I pointed out, that's not the case - it's merely an issue of civil vs. criminal law.
No I did not say that. What I said was the fourth amendment that you said was being violated does not apply. No rights were violated and again I ask you to point to a law that was broken by the store.
You didn't address the point that once he had paid for the merchandise, he was NO LONGER A CUSTOMER and had no obligation to follow any of the store's policies.
Thats just asinine. He's a customer as long as he's on THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
You didn't defend your incorrect assertion that he wasn't "searched." They certainly were trying to force him to submit to a search - they demanded to examine a personal effect of his (the receipt they just GAVE to him! look up "give" in a dictionary, please) and refused to let him go until he showed it to them.
I've been to stores like this. At no time did they ever try to search me or touch me in any way. All they did was to ask to SHOW the receipt, and occasionally they ask to look into the bag. Thats not a search of your person in any strecth of the imagination. I agree they are not allowed to pat me down or look in my pokets, but that DIDNT HAPPEN.
You didn't defend your assertion that they had "probable cause," because you don't understand what probable cause is. Many others have pointed out that the store didn't even meet the requirements to exercise "shopkeeper's privilege."
Any reasonable person can see that he was acting suspiciously. He refused to stop and present a receipt when asked and essentialy ran out the door to a waiting car on the sidewalk. If you were having a garage sale and someone suddenly bolted to a waiting car on the sidewalk, wouldn't you think they stole something? So according to your logic all you can do is watch them leave. You couldn't try and stop them or question them in anyway. You'd also be robbed blind.
Just like because I'm in your home doesn't mean you can tackle me or lock me in, being in a store does not give the owner the right to physically restrain me (and if you aren't physically restraining me, how are you keeping me in your store if I want to leave?).
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.
Sure, you can refuse service to anyone. They did not refuse service to this guy. What they did was SERVICED him. He went in. Bought items. They sold him the items. Then he walked out and they wanted to search his person. In fact, whether or not he purchased anything, they have no right to detain or search him. They are wage-monkeys with a nametag. They are not the law. And even the law must provide probable cause for searching you.
That's not quite what happened.
Before he left the store they asked him for the receipt - he was still inside at this point. He refused and walked out. 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. This gives them the right to detain him until he proved that he didn't do anything. They did not search him (nor do they have the right to physically search him), but they do have the right to ask to prove he didn't steal anything.
Lets say you were having a garage sale, then someone bolted to the street and tried to get in a waiting car. Are you saying you have no right to try and stop him, ask his name or question him at all? You'd be robbed blind.
My point (since you seem to have missed it) is that it he did something about something he felt to be an injustice... I have not said that I agree with his fight, but I'll defend to death his right to do so. I would rather see him fight a fight I disagree with than watch him be part of Generation Apathy.
I completely agree with the right to stand up and fight for injustices. However in this case this is not an injustice. He was being an ass because he enjoys it and knew what was going to happen
Standing up for perceived injustices should be tempered by what a normal person would consider reasonable. If I didn't like dogs and felt they shouldn't be kept as pets, should I be allowed to walk up to dog owners on the street and start screaming at them to keep their filthy animal away from me? And then scream that I have every right to do so because my actions were protected by free speech? No of course not. What this guy did is in the same category of being unreasonable.
I don't think he claimed the store broke the law (though the cop did). I've heard people claim that the store was guilty of "kidnaping," but that's hyperbole. If anything, the guy has a tort case for false imprisonment, but no criminal case.
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.
Irrelevant. He was still arrested after he had been cleared of any crime. The police officer had nothing to investigate, so he made up a crime for this guy to be charged with. "Obstructing Official Business"? Ha! Only if the cop had any business demanding ID, which he didn't.
Agreed the cop was in the wrong for arresting him, but it's not irrelevant that the guy completely brought the situation upon himself for no real reason.
None of which you even bothered to address, I notice. If my points are illogical, point out why - but you don't even HAVE an argument, so you can't.
I did adress it - the fourth amendment does not apply to private persons. Read it if you can. It's pretty clear. I didn't feel the need to argue something so obvious. And you never pointed out a valid law that the store was violating.
BZZZT! Been living successfully on my own for 20 years now, but an occasional immature flamewar on/. still suckers me in. It's about the only fun thing on the site anymore, ever since it became useless for news...
Anyone who argues with game show noises has the maturity of a 12 year old. I just assumed your age matched your intellect.
Are you seriously considering the racial segragation and discrimination that Rosa Parks had to suffer through in the south to some guy being pissed that he was asked to show his receipt at the store exit??
This guy in no sense of the word suffered any kind of injustice.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. In fact I can't believe it has taken this long for a feature like this to become available.
Some asshole steals my car and there's nothing I can do but watch hime drive away? People talk about infringement of rights but where's my right to keep my own stuff?
I tried that once - buying a cheap pair of shoes. I ended up with tendonitis in my foot and had to hobble around for two weeks until it cleared up. Threw out the shoes and went back to a quality pair.
I do agree with you that you should always look to see if you are getting gouged. But some things you need to pay more for to get good quality. On the other hand, some things are just massively overpriced simply because of the name and not the quality of the item. Buyer beware.
What the hell are you talking about? That made no sense to me whatsoever.
To paraphrase, take the log out of your own eye before you complain about the splinter in someone elses.
The geographic location I specified is accurate. The predudice you are implying is not mine, so must be your own.
Why would you say that (you are wrong, btw)
No, of course not. People can believe whatever they like. But I stll maintain that their beliefs are so different from mainstream Christians that it should be considered a different religion.
Cool! I didn't know Cuba was a "vast smorgasbord of cool stuff that anyone can just take for themselves any time they please". I'll have to visit and check it out.
Me either. Creationist 'Christians' that believe the world is only 8000 yars old actually constitute only a very small percentage (like maybe 1%) of Christians worldwide, although they are quite vocal and seem much larger. They typically reside in the southern US.
In fact their beliefs are so far removed from mainstream Christianity that I don' really consider them Christians but just a misguided cult.
Your counter arguments are moronic, offtopic and completely misinformed. You have no idea what your real rights are, just what you believe they are. You are not listening to what I am saying and ignore arguments you have no response to so obviously there is no point in continuing this discussion.
And let me guess... While you believe you have no right to ask someone a question who is on your property, you probably are one of those gun nuts that believes that you have the right to blow them away without any cause or provocation. Gee, THAT makes sense.
Based on your communication skills and the sheer idiocy of your arguments, you must be a Republican. Its the only way to explain youre childish ignorance of the world.
You are a complete an utter moron. Go troll someone else.
Perfect example of what is wrong with the US education system.
Christopher Columbus never landed in what you seem to be referring to as America (as in the United States according to the quote you copied). He landed in the American continent, specifically Cuba. He never actually set foot on what is now the continental United States.
There's a big difference in believing in God and believing that the world is only 8000 years old. God and evolution for the vast majority of the people on the planet are not mutually exclusive.
It's a freaking PHONE for gods sake, the last thing I want to do with a phone is program it. Why would I want an SDK, I deal with enough of that shit at work.
They're not preventing you from unlocking the phones. But they don't have any obligation to provide compatible software updates either. If your phone is unlocked and it works, then don't upgrade the software. Simple.
You made the decision to modify the phone and violate the warrantly. Then you should have realized that you wouldn't get any future support from Apple, and that includes software updates.
That's not what's happening
The users vioded their warranty by modding the phones. Apple is providing an update under warranty (you dont think they were providing software updates out of the goodness of their hearts do you?) that may or may not be compatible with the modded phones.
The solution is don't upgrade the phone with the new patch - it'll still continue to work. Why would you exepct that your phone would stay compatible after modification?
Really? What if he ran out of the store? Is that then suspicious enough to be probable cause? What if he ran out with bulges under his trenchcoat yelling "You'll never catch me fuckers!" is that then probable cause or do you still insist on they actually have to see him shoplift? Both running and talking are not illegal or against store policy the last time I looked.
The cops actions are not in question here, only the store security guard. The cop in the story did a search that was voluntary. If he refused that search he would have been protected by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment does not apply to the store security guard who, incidentally, DID NOT SEARCH HIM.
Really? So I walk up to you on the street. I ask to see the newspaper you're holding. You say no and keep walking. Apparently according to you I've just searched you and violated your rights. Give me a break. The only search that was performed was by the cop at the end and that was consentual. There was no search performed by store staff.
Let's say thats true. A woman walks into a grocery store (this actually happened) hides a turkey under her dress and walks out pretending she's pregnant. Noone saw her put the turkey under her skirt, but the staff saw her walk in not pregnant and walk out pregnant. Since she was so obviously hiding something, they stop her and accuse her of shoplifting. According to you again, since they didn't actually see her put the turkey under her skirt, the did an illegal search and confinement and should have all been shot for violating her god given right to walk around with a turkey under her skirt. You're such an idiot.
Why? They were just doing their job as described and dictated by store policy. That attitude is just like these criminals who hate cops for arresting them. Blame everyone else for your troubles but yourself.
In my opinion the security guard had probable cause to suspect shoplifting due to the guy refusing to show his receipt then leaving and getting into a waiting car near the door. If somewone WAS shoplifting, they would have exhibited the same behaviour, therefore the suspicion was warranted.
a) No he was not running - my mistake, but he did not stop when the security guard asked him to either.
b) When did I state that he legally had to show his receipt?? I said it was resonable to ASK to show his receipt. Given that he knew the store policy, he refused to show it when asked and his subsequent behaviour, this gave the merchant probable cause to suspect shoplifting and try and detain him. Thats ALL I said.
c) Again you are putting words in my mouth. What I said was asking to see a receipt is not a search. They were asking for a voluntary search which he refused. No search therefore was performed. If he did just hold up his receipt, then no that is not a search. Often this is just to place a mark on the receipt to show the merchandise has been checked for purposes of warranty returns. If they went through his bags, then yes that is a search.
Look up the legal definition of search. It is not a search if (for example) a cop pulls you over and he looks over the inside and outside of your car while talking to you. A visual inspection is not considered a search - even though is it apparent it is backed by force (he's a police office with a sidearm). Similarly asking to SEE the receipt is not a search.
Do you not find it embarrasing that a Canadian knows more about your rights and laws than you do?
Jesus, how fucking stupid are you? Does it come naturally or do you have to wrk at it?
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.
The basis of the case law you point out is all about the fouth amendment. The Fourth amendment does not apply to private persons, only government law enforcement.
Simply asking to see a receipt is NOT A SEARCH. Look up the legal definition of search if you can read you moron. If they insist on rummaging through the bag, then yes that could be a search, but in this case the suspect refused the volountary search so it ended there. The merchant BROKE NO LAW ON SEARCH.
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". In my opionion they had probable cause to suspect he was stealing something. 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".
Are you angry and hostile because of your diminutive stature or your incredibly small penis?
Running out of a store into a waiting vehicle and refusing to stop INSIDE the store when asked I'd argue is probable cause.
And the guy at the door has no way of knowing that unless he looks at the receipt. He can't possibly be expected to look at and memorize everyone in the checkout, plus the large numbers of people bypassing the checkout because they didn't buy anything. Yes, he just bought something and it is not unreasonable to ask to see the receipt.
Obviosly you have your opinion and I have mine. As you state it comes down to probable cause which I beleive they had due to him acting like an asshole, and you believe they dont'. There's obviosly no convincing you so stop wasting my tme.
Again, please point to a law saying they do not have the right to do what they did. Despite assertions, I have yet to have anyone give me a law to that effect.
How is it a search if they just ask you to show them something? If I ask to see your watch, does that mean I just searched you? No of course not.Why would he not take 2 seconds to hold up his receipt? Either because he was hiding something or he was a complete asshole and liked to piss people off. Since the first is FAR more likely (except in this case) they suspected him of shoplifting. They had reasonable cause to suspect him and to try and detain him. Note that they never actually TOUCHED him, so their attempts at detaining him were perfectly legal.
Show me the law that says they cannot stop you and ask for a recept!! Why is it that hard for you to do that if it is not legal??!
Are you insane? That is clearly against the law (several of them). Again show me the law that says a storeowner cannot demand to see the store receipt. Until then shut the fuck up and stop spewing stupidity.
Yes I did. The fourth amedment does not apply to private citizens, and it doesn't matter how much you think it should. Here is the cae law that proves it: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invol=109 . Specifically: The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated (...) This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."
What part of that do you not understand??
No I did not say that. What I said was the fourth amendment that you said was being violated does not apply. No rights were violated and again I ask you to point to a law that was broken by the store.
Thats just asinine. He's a customer as long as he's on THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I've been to stores like this. At no time did they ever try to search me or touch me in any way. All they did was to ask to SHOW the receipt, and occasionally they ask to look into the bag. Thats not a search of your person in any strecth of the imagination. I agree they are not allowed to pat me down or look in my pokets, but that DIDNT HAPPEN.
Any reasonable person can see that he was acting suspiciously. He refused to stop and present a receipt when asked and essentialy ran out the door to a waiting car on the sidewalk. If you were having a garage sale and someone suddenly bolted to a waiting car on the sidewalk, wouldn't you think they stole something? So according to your logic all you can do is watch them leave. You couldn't try and stop them or question them in anyway. You'd also be robbed blind.
So again, what law did the store violate?
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.
That's not quite what happened.
Before he left the store they asked him for the receipt - he was still inside at this point. He refused and walked out. 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. This gives them the right to detain him until he proved that he didn't do anything. They did not search him (nor do they have the right to physically search him), but they do have the right to ask to prove he didn't steal anything.
Lets say you were having a garage sale, then someone bolted to the street and tried to get in a waiting car. Are you saying you have no right to try and stop him, ask his name or question him at all? You'd be robbed blind.
I completely agree with the right to stand up and fight for injustices. However in this case this is not an injustice. He was being an ass because he enjoys it and knew what was going to happen
Standing up for perceived injustices should be tempered by what a normal person would consider reasonable. If I didn't like dogs and felt they shouldn't be kept as pets, should I be allowed to walk up to dog owners on the street and start screaming at them to keep their filthy animal away from me? And then scream that I have every right to do so because my actions were protected by free speech? No of course not. What this guy did is in the same category of being unreasonable.
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.
Agreed the cop was in the wrong for arresting him, but it's not irrelevant that the guy completely brought the situation upon himself for no real reason.
I did adress it - the fourth amendment does not apply to private persons. Read it if you can. It's pretty clear. I didn't feel the need to argue something so obvious. And you never pointed out a valid law that the store was violating.
Anyone who argues with game show noises has the maturity of a 12 year old. I just assumed your age matched your intellect.
Are you seriously considering the racial segragation and discrimination that Rosa Parks had to suffer through in the south to some guy being pissed that he was asked to show his receipt at the store exit??
This guy in no sense of the word suffered any kind of injustice.