Yes, read his blog. He states that he's done this several times before, and he knew what they were going to do. I'd have a completely different attitude if this guy innocently ran into the situation, but he did not.
As I understand the results of this and other such reports if you demand a recipt from someone and they refuse you can force them to leave and deny them readmittance. If you think they are stealing something, you can call the police and report the theft.
Think at this from the store owners point of view. The guy refuses to show his receipt to the security (no one was searching him or trying to seize his merchandise), and continues out of the store and hops into a waiting vehicle. Anyone would think that this guy was trying to steal, and the store has a right to make a reasonable attempt to try and stop him. If they do not, then they should get rid of the doors, and the guards, and just trust everyone to pay. Hell, why not get rid of the cashiers and put a box at the front where people can drop in their cash.
I have yet to have anyone point out a law that the store violated. The guy was being an ass, he KNEW he was being an ass, and apparently likes to do this sort of thing for the attention.
Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are. No matter how angry and illogical your arguments are.
Oh, and just to finish up, I'll throw in a gratuitous insult: you're a total fucktard sheeple authoritarian asshat. Show me the law that says I can't call you that, and then cram it up your ass!
Wow some hidden anger there. Beat kittens much? Or are you just angry that you still live in your moms basement?
See the Fourth Amendment. You don't have any more right to search another citizen than they have to search you.
Apparently you haven't read it.
a) the event was not a search or seizure. The store simply asked to SEE the receipt which he refused. This was probable cause to suspecty that he stole something.
b) the fourth amendment does not apply to private citizens, only to search and seizure under government authority.
So, got another bullshit law to say that what the company did was illegal, or does your distorted sense of your own rights just make you THINK it was illegal?
My take is that first, gays ARE allowed to marry. They're just not allowed to marry members of the same sex, since "marriage" has been defined since its inception as a union between a man and a woman (or a man and a harem depending on time and place).
Really? Who defined it? The churches? I think not. Marriage is defined as whatever is socially acceptable, and this changes through time. If that means same sex marriage, then thats fine.
I, on the other hand, am a divorced heterosexual who can't find a woman to fall in love with who can fall in love with me, bacause I'm a nerd and the only women who would fall in love with me are alcoholics, crackheads, and whores. No thanks! So why should YOU, a gay man, get special treatment? Look, I'm spending shitloads of money of crackwhores, why can't I get a "civil union" (my marriage was never very civil) with all of them and deduct them from my taxes? As well as all the shit the goddamned theiving bitches steal? Damned crackhheads...
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.
As long as I dont descriminate against sex, age, race, religion, or nationality, I can legally refuse service to anyone. I can demand to see a recipt if thats my policy and they are still on my property. Show me the law that says I cannot.
Yeap, that door checker certainly was a stubborn moron.
No, the door checker was doing his job as he was hired to do it, according to the policy of the store
Oh, I see you meant someone who stands up for his rights was the stubborn moron. If you really think that then I think you're the one it should be applied to. If people don't stand up for their rights they soon find they don't have any rights.
He wasn't standing up for his rights - he was being an asshole that started the whole thing on purpose. He was not an innocent bystander that had his rights violated, he purposely picked a fight because he KNEW what was going to happen.
If I have a store, I can do whatever the hell I want. I can refuse service to whomever I like and I can make policies how I see fit. No arrogant childish little shit like that guy (and you apparently) is going to tell me how to run my store. He's on my private property - he plays by my rules. If he doesn't like it then he can go harass some other store owner.
That whole incident could have been avoided by him not being a complete asshole, and he knows it. He CHOSE to exacerbate the issue by being a prick, and apparently he gets off doing it. I just hope he doesn't breed.
This hasn't become a bigger deal in the media because it's just one story of a complete asshole picking a fight just because he can.
It's one thing to stick up for your rights. It's completely another to be an arrogant prick, forcing your will onto others for no good reason, other than he's a complete stubborn moron. Take free speech for example. Yes everyone has it but what this guy did is the equivalent of walking down the street speaking your mind about everything just to gather attention. Then screaming 'but I have a right to free speech!' when someone complains.
There's a time and place to pick fights and this example is certainly not one of them. Some people talk about banning Circuit City. If I were running Circuit City, I would ban this asshole from ever being allowed back into the store.
It discourages foreign workers from sneaking into the US. Getting $4.00 an hour is suddenly not so much compared to what they get paid in their home country.
Yes. $4 per hour in Canada would be illegal. The lowest allowable minimum wage in Canada is $7, and it is typically around $8 depending on what provincve you live in.
Fatuous people who are ignorant of the present tend to believe there is a difference between voting Republican and voting Democrat
Well it's a demonstratable fact that all the conflicts that the US is involved in today were started or exacerbated by small minded foreign policies of Republicans.
Look a the problems today with Iran. Iran used to be a democracy, however the Shaw dictatorship was put into place by the US government when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 because the US/Britain wanted to retain power of (can you guess??) the countrys oil. Eisenhower, a Republican, was in power at this time and authorized the overthrow. The democrat before him refused. This was the original catalyst for the future Iranian problems.
When the Islamists overthrew the Shaw they established a fundamentalist regime bent on the destruction of the 'great Satan' USA. Then of couse, Regan gave arms to the Iranians, then decided that was a bad idea and gave Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis more arms to fight the arms given to Iran. And don't forget the arming and training of the Taliban in Afghanistan by Regan to fight the 'evil' soviets.
So, todays big touble spots: Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, fighters all trained and supplied by US Republican foreign policy. Tell me there is no differnce.
Every day there are large protests against the government in the USA, and the police show up to PROTECT them.
Ah yes, and I guess when the National Guard under Nixon opened fire killing a bunch of students, they were being protected too. If you've never heard of that it's called the Kent State massacre. People who are ignorant of their own history tend to vote Republican.
And you'd think that if there were large daily protests against the government, they'd clue in and resign. Bush and his rapidly diminishing group of morons really are stupid aren't they. Or maybe its the people for electing them to a second term (or not forcing an impeachment).
Over the last 8 years it's lost about 30%-50% of it's relative value against other western currencies. It happens to coincide with a strong Canadian economy which leads to the 50% gain the loonie has had over the greenback in the last year.
8 years also happens to coincide with GW Bush presidency. But spending $200 million PER DAY on a war couldn't possibly have any effect on the economy now could it..
Here we go again.. i have noticed recently on/. that all these comments soon as you like go so far WAY WAY WAY off topic that they cease to becom relavent to the original article .
What do you mean off topic? We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere--like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah--the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones. Anyway, 'long story short', is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling.
according to the good book, these galaxies cant be more than a few thousand light years away either.
Actually no, since that would assume a big bang creation 6000 years ago which is wrong.
The galaxies are where science says they are. But since the universe was created solely for our benefit 6000 years ago, then a big bang theory is impossible (since science says nothing goes faster than light) so that actually PROVES the existance of God!
In most jurisdictions it is only theft if the object is physically moved entirely away from its original location
Are you saying a house cannot be stolen? Tell that to the people that have lost their houses due to identity theft where the criminals sold their house without their knowledge.
For example, we can believe the world was created in seven days and that the universe is six thousand years old, and our view is just as valid* as any other
Sure your opinion is valid. It's also completely and demostratably wrong.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote
Interesting quote.
So what would it be if given the two wolves and a lamb, only one wolf was well armed? Liberty for the armed wolf or a dictatorship? Guns don't provide liberty, beliefs and actions do.
You mean Carter was a Republican? Or did you forget the support for the Shah of Iran which started all the mess between Shia and Sunni again?
Read your history..
The American support for the Shaw was well established long before Carter became president. In fact, when Carter was in power, the Shaw was (unfortunately) on his way out - leaving the country in January 1979 (Carter elected in 1977).
The US liked the Shaw because he supported the modernization of Iran with education and feedom reforms. However the Islamists did not like the changes which eventually had him overthrown. Yes the Shaw was brutal in some of his repression strategies, but he understood the dangers of allowing the religious fundamentalism to exist and grow in power.
After the Shaw left, we now have a fundamentalist regime bent on the destruction of the 'great Satan' USA.
Then of couse, Regan gave arms to the Iranians, then decided that was a bad idea and gave the Saddam Hussein and Iraqis more arms to fight the arms given to Iran. And don't forget the arming and training of the Taliban in Afghanistan against the 'evil' soviets.
So, todays big touble spots: Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, all trained and supplied by US Republican foreign policy.
And go back a little further even. The Shaw dictatorship was put into place by the US government when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 because the US/Britain wanted to retain power of (can you guess??) the countrys oil. Eisenhower, a Republican, was in power at this time and authorized the overthrow. This was the original catalyst for the future Iranian problems.
So I maintain my original premise - if you want personal security, stop voting in these moronic warmongering Republicans who do nothing but drive the country into ruin and piss off the rest of the world in the process.
Here in Indiana and in most other forward thinking states there is no requirement that a person be in fear of his life before employing deadly force when faced with a threat inside his own home.
Again, most gun nuts think they have far more rights than they actually do have.
Here is the law for Indiana:
... a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony...
so why exactly do you think that there are no requirements before you kill someone on your own property?
Not in Texas. In Texas, if someone/thing decides to trespass on your property, and they are in any way a threat, you have the legal right to shoot them.
No you do not. This is a mistaken belief among many pro gun people.
Texas has no 'Castle Doctrine' law, although some people are trying to get one passed. Texas currely has a 'duty to retreat' provision for use of deadly force in self-defece, which means someone may not use deadly force if a reasonable person in the same situation would have retreated. You can only use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger and there is no altenative.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, read his blog. He states that he's done this several times before, and he knew what they were going to do. I'd have a completely different attitude if this guy innocently ran into the situation, but he did not.
Think at this from the store owners point of view. The guy refuses to show his receipt to the security (no one was searching him or trying to seize his merchandise), and continues out of the store and hops into a waiting vehicle. Anyone would think that this guy was trying to steal, and the store has a right to make a reasonable attempt to try and stop him. If they do not, then they should get rid of the doors, and the guards, and just trust everyone to pay. Hell, why not get rid of the cashiers and put a box at the front where people can drop in their cash.
I have yet to have anyone point out a law that the store violated. The guy was being an ass, he KNEW he was being an ass, and apparently likes to do this sort of thing for the attention.
Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are. No matter how angry and illogical your arguments are.
Wow some hidden anger there. Beat kittens much? Or are you just angry that you still live in your moms basement?
Apparently you haven't read it.
a) the event was not a search or seizure. The store simply asked to SEE the receipt which he refused. This was probable cause to suspecty that he stole something.
b) the fourth amendment does not apply to private citizens, only to search and seizure under government authority.
So, got another bullshit law to say that what the company did was illegal, or does your distorted sense of your own rights just make you THINK it was illegal?
Really? Who defined it? The churches? I think not. Marriage is defined as whatever is socially acceptable, and this changes through time. If that means same sex marriage, then thats fine.
Shit dude, that's fucked up.
As long as I dont descriminate against sex, age, race, religion, or nationality, I can legally refuse service to anyone. I can demand to see a recipt if thats my policy and they are still on my property. Show me the law that says I cannot.
No, the door checker was doing his job as he was hired to do it, according to the policy of the store
He wasn't standing up for his rights - he was being an asshole that started the whole thing on purpose. He was not an innocent bystander that had his rights violated, he purposely picked a fight because he KNEW what was going to happen.
If I have a store, I can do whatever the hell I want. I can refuse service to whomever I like and I can make policies how I see fit. No arrogant childish little shit like that guy (and you apparently) is going to tell me how to run my store. He's on my private property - he plays by my rules. If he doesn't like it then he can go harass some other store owner.
That whole incident could have been avoided by him not being a complete asshole, and he knows it. He CHOSE to exacerbate the issue by being a prick, and apparently he gets off doing it. I just hope he doesn't breed.
If you dont like the store policy - THEN DONT SHOP THERE!!! Moron.
This hasn't become a bigger deal in the media because it's just one story of a complete asshole picking a fight just because he can.
It's one thing to stick up for your rights. It's completely another to be an arrogant prick, forcing your will onto others for no good reason, other than he's a complete stubborn moron. Take free speech for example. Yes everyone has it but what this guy did is the equivalent of walking down the street speaking your mind about everything just to gather attention. Then screaming 'but I have a right to free speech!' when someone complains.
There's a time and place to pick fights and this example is certainly not one of them. Some people talk about banning Circuit City. If I were running Circuit City, I would ban this asshole from ever being allowed back into the store.
Actrually anyone who buys anything by Ann Coulter should be immediately flogged and thrown in jail.
Yes. $4 per hour in Canada would be illegal. The lowest allowable minimum wage in Canada is $7, and it is typically around $8 depending on what provincve you live in.
Well it's a demonstratable fact that all the conflicts that the US is involved in today were started or exacerbated by small minded foreign policies of Republicans.
Look a the problems today with Iran. Iran used to be a democracy, however the Shaw dictatorship was put into place by the US government when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 because the US/Britain wanted to retain power of (can you guess??) the countrys oil. Eisenhower, a Republican, was in power at this time and authorized the overthrow. The democrat before him refused. This was the original catalyst for the future Iranian problems.
When the Islamists overthrew the Shaw they established a fundamentalist regime bent on the destruction of the 'great Satan' USA. Then of couse, Regan gave arms to the Iranians, then decided that was a bad idea and gave Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis more arms to fight the arms given to Iran. And don't forget the arming and training of the Taliban in Afghanistan by Regan to fight the 'evil' soviets.
So, todays big touble spots: Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, fighters all trained and supplied by US Republican foreign policy. Tell me there is no differnce.
Ah yes, and I guess when the National Guard under Nixon opened fire killing a bunch of students, they were being protected too. If you've never heard of that it's called the Kent State massacre. People who are ignorant of their own history tend to vote Republican.
And you'd think that if there were large daily protests against the government, they'd clue in and resign. Bush and his rapidly diminishing group of morons really are stupid aren't they. Or maybe its the people for electing them to a second term (or not forcing an impeachment).
The North Pole, magnetic North and Santa are all on Canadian territory. Keep making fun of us and you'll be paying user fees for all of them.
8 years also happens to coincide with GW Bush presidency. But spending $200 million PER DAY on a war couldn't possibly have any effect on the economy now could it..
What do you mean off topic? We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere--like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah--the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones. Anyway, 'long story short', is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling.
Actually no, since that would assume a big bang creation 6000 years ago which is wrong.
The galaxies are where science says they are. But since the universe was created solely for our benefit 6000 years ago, then a big bang theory is impossible (since science says nothing goes faster than light) so that actually PROVES the existance of God!
The person would have committed fraud with the bank to obtain the property, but it still is theft of the house title.
Are you saying a house cannot be stolen? Tell that to the people that have lost their houses due to identity theft where the criminals sold their house without their knowledge.
Sure your opinion is valid. It's also completely and demostratably wrong.
Interesting quote.
So what would it be if given the two wolves and a lamb, only one wolf was well armed? Liberty for the armed wolf or a dictatorship? Guns don't provide liberty, beliefs and actions do.
Read your history..
The American support for the Shaw was well established long before Carter became president. In fact, when Carter was in power, the Shaw was (unfortunately) on his way out - leaving the country in January 1979 (Carter elected in 1977).
The US liked the Shaw because he supported the modernization of Iran with education and feedom reforms. However the Islamists did not like the changes which eventually had him overthrown. Yes the Shaw was brutal in some of his repression strategies, but he understood the dangers of allowing the religious fundamentalism to exist and grow in power.
After the Shaw left, we now have a fundamentalist regime bent on the destruction of the 'great Satan' USA. Then of couse, Regan gave arms to the Iranians, then decided that was a bad idea and gave the Saddam Hussein and Iraqis more arms to fight the arms given to Iran. And don't forget the arming and training of the Taliban in Afghanistan against the 'evil' soviets.
So, todays big touble spots: Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, all trained and supplied by US Republican foreign policy.
And go back a little further even. The Shaw dictatorship was put into place by the US government when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 because the US/Britain wanted to retain power of (can you guess??) the countrys oil. Eisenhower, a Republican, was in power at this time and authorized the overthrow. This was the original catalyst for the future Iranian problems.
So I maintain my original premise - if you want personal security, stop voting in these moronic warmongering Republicans who do nothing but drive the country into ruin and piss off the rest of the world in the process.
Again, most gun nuts think they have far more rights than they actually do have.
Here is the law for Indiana:
so why exactly do you think that there are no requirements before you kill someone on your own property?
No you do not. This is a mistaken belief among many pro gun people.
Texas has no 'Castle Doctrine' law, although some people are trying to get one passed. Texas currely has a 'duty to retreat' provision for use of deadly force in self-defece, which means someone may not use deadly force if a reasonable person in the same situation would have retreated. You can only use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger and there is no altenative.