Did it ever occur to you that is exactly what he is doing? He polls a large group of vocal and knowledgeable (your comment excluded of course) people and based on their suggestions narrows his search quickly. Not surprising your sig was AC with an asinine comment like that.
I'm sure someone will disagree with this without some link or proof of your source material, but common sense tells me it is 100% accurate. Underpaid people sitting in a control room with cameras for 4-8 hours, however long their shift is, will breed utter boredom with the job after a while. After that it's just a matter of trying to stay awake, and what better way than skirt watching?!
Men. . ..we may be dogs by nature, but at least we're predictable!
I think what blowdart is saying is you're not booting off this "web OS". You've got to have an OS to access the net to get to the "web OS", and if that is the case why access another OS when you're already running an existing OS? And if that was your point blowdart, I agree. I'm not booting my "home OS" to then access a "web OS". It's like driving my car across town so I can get on my bicycle to go just a bit farther.
"Phatpod iPod Nano - Like your sleek device for workouts? Too bad, go get a Shuffle - BONED"
I don't think the dimension changes are earth shattering. It's still a tiny little player, and the total area may be smaller than the old one.
"$.99 ringtone on top of $.99 to buy the song (certain songs only) - BONED"
Have you SEEN what the other wireless carries sell ringtones for? $1.98 is a bargain.
"Starbucks "integration" - now my iPhone will spend a few extra seconds every time I hook up to a Wifi access point looking for coffee music - BONED"
Absolutely no impact on you. You aren't required to do anything.
"We managed to fit really nice HDs in iPods, but not the new Touch iPod - but you get a few millimeters back - BONED"
No matter what the mix in features there's always someone not happy. I see your point to some degree, but I think you're being a bit oversensitive about it.
"$599 to $399 price drop in 2 months - EXTREMELY BONED"
C'mon, you lost all credibility on this one. Who loses in this price drop? Apple? . . . No Consumers? . . . No Early Adopters? . . . No (They rationalized the price and found it acceptable when they bought it. Every new technology goes down in price over time.) This a big deal and is going to crush the attempts of other cell phone makers as they attempt to roll out poor touch screen imitations.
All in all, a pretty good iPod refresh. The iPhone price cut was icing on the cake.
I think this guy needs to go back to college and learn some fundamentals about writing the truth. I can't see one shred of evidence that shows the iPhone's sales have been disappointing. I think this is a well timed move to crush any touchscreen wannabe competitors before they even get off the ground. Apple has the lead on this phone technology right now and I think they will aggressively push to keep all competitors a year or more behind them.
Again, you haven't provided the link. You say it's there then post it. I can post several links that back up my argument about the necessary components to shopkeeper's priveledge.
Can you even post one to support yours. You've made up falsehoods about the articel throughout this thread. Back it up with something. I'm at least reading the article and not making up crap about getaway cars and rushing out of the store. You've been spewing BS about this all day and not one iota of it has been fact. Post the link.
Again, where's the link to your definition of shopkeeper's priveledge? Where is the link to a judges guilty verdict based on the criteria you've stated? I've whittled all your arguments down and you either have to put up or shut up (not that I expect you to, you'd rather die now than admit you're wrong).
I've backed up my arguments with facts and the LAW. Plus, my own personal experience at Sams. You've backed yours up with . . . . nothing. This last post of yours is the refuge of the defeated. Give me some facts to back your arguments, you've failed to do that miserably.
Give me a link to your shopkeeper's priveledge site. The list I used agrees with every list I've seen and I'll bet yours doesn't even cover the conditions to satisfy shopkeeper's priveledge.
And no, you didn't catch me in a lie. I've walked out of Sams many times despite their attempt to see my receipt. The legally bound crap only means they can cancel my membership if they want, it doesn't mean I can't walk out. It just means there might be consequences if I do, and I there haven't been any.
You haven't backed one thing you've said with fact. "Rushing out" "Getaway car" blah blah blah. You're so fake. I'm waiting for the proof that judges have decided cases based on your criteria. You still haven't provided that either. Everything you've said has been false.
"If the guy wasn't RUSHING out the door, why did he not simply discuss his RIGHT TO REFUSE to show the receipt to the employee? "
Because he shouldn't have to stop and deal with their unreasonable request.
"Perhaps you have not shopped at one of these establishments before? There is NOTHING between the registers and the door, no merchandise to steal."
Thanks for making my point. Nothing to steal, so why do I have to show them anything. Duh!?
"There are two reasons you don't want them to look in the bag "
Actually there's a third if you could read, it's because you're a law abiding citizen and you've done nothing wrong. Again, I listed the shopkeeper's priveledge conditions and NONE were met. You've lost the argument for the 30th time.
"I'm willing to bet that a judget is going to see (a) failure to show receipt, (b) failure to stop and talk to the employee, (c) attempted to flee the scene (when he knew the store employee had an issue). "
I'm willing to bet you can't find one case that satisfies the first two arguments. I skip the third because he didn't flee you fool. He walked out, as was his legal right to do as a law abiding citizen.
"I want to see you go to Sam's Club and refuse to show your receipt. Try it!:) "
I've done it several times as I posted on a different thread in this topic. It made the little old lady mad. She shouted at me that she'd call security and I told her to go ahead and do it. Nothing happened. HAHAHAHAHA!!! I guess I already met this condition and you were defeated!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Go ahead lapdog, throw away your rights. I am innocent until proven guilty and I will not be treated like a criminal. If you don't have the balls to stand up to them, fine, just don't mistake my willingness to do it as criminal because it isn't. You're just too willing to roll over and do anything just because they say you have to. You don't even deserve those rights.
You didn't even look it up. These are the conditions:
You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise You must see the shoplifter conceal or carry away or convert your merchandise You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store
Next time look it up and understand what you're talking about. The Circuit City employee did not meet any of these criteria based on the article. Jeez you're ridiculous.
"he was ASKED to show proof of purchase and HE FAILED to do so. He WALKED OUT, the employee ASKED him to come back, he did not respond" They can ask, but he does NOt have to do any of those other things. Can't you read? HE DID NOTHING WRONG!
Who says it's common courtesy to show the receipt? You don't show it at most stores do you, only the ones that ask. Why don't you show it all stores genius? I know, it's because it is not required and not common courtesy.
You're a fool whose liberties will soon be stripped away because of your ignorance (and apparent ability to read and comprehend the law). You've lost the argument. Step down, next case!
As I've said before I do get your point, or lack of it. There IS a reason to not show the receipt. He made a lawful purchase and did nothing wrong, so why should he be required to prove his innocence? He shouldn't. The harm is allowing stores to create policies that treat you like crap when you've done nothing wrong. I've said that before too.
As for your shopkeeper's priveledge research, you may want to do it again because you didn't read it very well. They have to meet certain conditions to invoke that and they did not meet them so they are NOT allowed to detain him. There is not reasonable suspicion here. He paid for his purchase and WALKED OUT. That is not reasonable suspicion.
Your fire lane argument is lame. You're resorting to that to try and salvage your losing argument. IF it had been illegally parked the cop would have been an ass and nailed them for that too. He was already being an ass in unlawfully arresting the guy. Duh!
"HE ACTED SUSPICIOUSLY and got himself into this mess." He did not and you know it. YOUR willingness to submit to poor customer treatment does not make his refusal to submit to it suspicious. It just means you're a lapdog that will do what you're told and he and I are not. If you're trying to make the argument that exercising your rights as a consumer and a citizen makes you suspicious then you have lost all reason. Bend over and spread your cheeks next time. After all, YOU'RE innocent and you don't want to be suspicious!
"So the speed cameras are BETTER than no speed cameras"
No, they're not. They give too much power to the government. The drawbacks outweight the benefits.
Walking is NOT rushing. So yes, you are making facts up.
"You hand over the receipt, they have now seen the proof of purchase, you are not a shop lifter, they have no reason to look at the bag."
The receipt without looking at the bag is useless. So the choice is to hand them a receipt with no cross check to the bag, which is just a cheesy form of intimidation with no real loss prevention substance (and NOT legally required) or you have to give them the bag too. Either way it is NOT required by law, shopkeeper's priveledge does NOT give them the right to detain you without probably cause, so that man acted lawfully and the store employee detaining him was unlawful. The store employee who broke the law should be arrested, not the guy who followed the law. Didn't I tell you to look up shopkeeper's priveledge or are you just unwilling to learn something and admit your interpretation of the law is incorrect?
"Since you don't think he was acting suspicious, tell me what the harm is in letting them see the receipt? The guy was being a smart ass"
What is the harm in a strip search then? I mean you're innnocent, why not submit to that? Because by law you don't have to so why should you. If you want to be treated like a criminal then fine, be a sheep and hand over your receipt. I'm not doing it because I am innocent and shouldn't be treated like a criminal by default. And saying "no thank you" is not being a smart ass. That's a complete lack of logic. It is at worst a polite refusal, but not being a smart ass. Playing dumb is not being a smart ass. He had done nothing wrong so he shouldn't be required to address the situation unless the store employee escalated the situation in some way. He may have showed polite indifference to the request, but he shouldn't have had to address it at all if the store would treat their customers with respect.
As I've said before, 98% of the people here disagree with you. The law is on their, mine, and this customer's side. You are wrong. Freedom isn't free. You actually have to work for it sometimes.
You're wrong on SO many points, and it's been enumerated many times in this Slashdot threads for this story. The store has the right to ASK to see the receipt, but that is it. Did you read that? They can ask, but they can't force you to.
"You have the right to say no, but then you also have the obligation to prove that you are not a shop lifter."
No, I do not have the obligation to prove that. THEY have the obligation to show that they have probably cause to believe a theft occured, and that means seeing merchandise stolen, continued observance, failure to pay. They ALL have to happen. Look up shopkeeper's priveledge. Your assumption that I am guilty until proven innocent is false.
"Run out of the store to a getaway car?"
And where in the article did it say there was a getaway car? Did it have the words "getaway car" on the side? Or maybe just the words "shoplifter taxi"? It was just a car. His dad drove him so he let him off at the curb and picked him up there. There's nothing unlawful in that and a customer should not be detained if they have done nothing unlawful. The store employees were wrong to detain him. Period. You have no leg to stand on with that argument.
"The stores DO have the right to inspect all receipts,"
No they don't. Show me that law? I'll wait. Please learn what you're talking about instead of making things up.
"That is not unreasonable, and there is absolutely NO REASON for someone to refuse to show a receipt."
Actually we can see from this case that there IS a reason. I would say that well over 98% of the Slashdot posts on this article have agreed that there is a reason. He was an honest consumer making a purchase and he shouldn't have to submit to the request to be searched in any form unless they had probably cause that he stole something. Refusing to show a receipt is NOT probably cause. Getting into a lawfully parked car is NOT probable cause.
"But not showing the receipt implies they are hiding something."
Only in a society where you are guilty until proven innocent. Unless we fight crap like this we will soon live in that society, hence the person standing up for his rights (and yours and mine by extension).
"sometimes the little guy is not entirely innocent."
Sometimes they are not. In this case he was. He did NOTHING wrong. Everything he did was lawful and in return he was unlawfully detained by the store and unlawfully arrested by the cop. THAT has been the point of this whole article. He did nothing unlawful and he was subjected to unlawful behavior by the store and the cop. Perhaps you should READ the article again yourself because a third grader could figure this out?
"speeding = ticket, logic tells people speeding = risk of ticket"
That's what I was saying. But since he ran a risk of a ticket if he was speeding anyway then he wasn't really applying logic to his behavior, was he? Soooooo, lack of logic without cameras does not mean he'll suddenly use logic if cameras are there. His behavior was illogical, with or without cameras. He runs the risk of a ticket if he speeds. Sooo, you seem to think "Had there been speed cameras, the guy (unless he is a complete idiot) would not have been speeding". I'm saying he obviously WAS an idiot and cameras wouldn't have helped.
"So their complete LACK of respect for other people, and their self-centered nature makes it alright for them to speed down the road however fast they like. It is the very nature of people that we need speed cameras."
That personality type you describe is not necessarily going to be motivated by the camera. Some may be, some won't be. The personality type you mention is obviously in his own world and a camera doesn't change that. In the meantime it opens the possibility of abuse by the government and that is a tradeoff I do not like. Probably minimal gains and a huge potential for abuse.
"He wasn't refusing a random bag search, he was asked to present his receipt as he left the store. He said no thanks and continued walking. The guy was trying to be a smart ass, and he got nailed for it."
A few flaws in your logic. First, as soon as you hand over the receipt the next question is obviously to examine the bag. You admit that yourself later in your post, "Now had he shown the receipt and they demanded to search his bag, that is then debatable." I mean it makes no sense to get the receipt and not look in the bag. And once you hand over YOUR receipt, you won't get it back until you hand over the bag. What would his options be then? Second, you just admitted that he said "no thank you" which is hardly being a smart ass. He was asked to do something that he knew he wasn't required to do and he POLITELY declined. So your sentence, if accurate, should read, "He politely refused to submit to an unnecessary search and he was unlawfully detained and arrested."
"he left the store in a suspicious manner"
No, he walked out after making his purchase at the cashier. Hardly suspicious.
"He shouldn't have rushed out of the store"
He didn't rush out. The blog says he walked, YOU said he walked. Quit making things up. Walking is not illegal nor suspicious.
"its usually a good idea to show the guy the receipt on your way out so if they attempt to tackle you in the parking lot later, you can say, well I did show the guy the receipt and sue the pants off them"
Are you serious? Show them the receipt so hopefully they won't TACKLE you? You just don't get it do you? By law he is not required to show his receipt or submit to a bag search. I don't give a f@%# what the store policy is, the law trumps it. I'm not sure you are capable of understanding what freedom really means. Freedom from violations of your rights. Freedom of having to submit to unlawful searches and seizures. Freedom of innocent, law-biding consumers from being harassed all in the name of the corporations bottom line.
Since you're so ready to do their bidding maybe you should hand over your receipt, drop your pants and spread your cheeks for a cavity search. I mean let's think about it, if you were a smart shoplifter wouldn't that be the perfect place to hide something.
Do you even stop to read your own post before submitting it?
"There is nothing wrong with being courtious to the police."
It's not being discourteous to the police when you stand up for your rights. I suppose a person is being discourteous if they don't submit to the baton and pepper spray? It seems the officer had a problem being courteous to a civilian and he decided he would arrest someone for no reason than he didn't instantly kiss the officer's ass and allow his rights to be violated?
"The police officer isn't pointing the gun to your head, or acting crazy"
He isn't? It seems to me he essentially is. He's saying, "Do anything I tell you, even if you're not legally obligated, or I'll arrest you on bogus charges to ruin your day." The substance of the officer's acts are the same, it's only the degree of the offense that was slightly different than what you asked. The cop was full of himself and punished someone unlawfully because he could get away with it. In case you don't understand, THAT IS WRONG!
"You are not giving up any rights when you identify yourself to the police. "
He DID identify himself to the police. He gave his name. The license issue IS a big deal because you ARE giving up your rights. Your right to go through life without having to produce your "papers" to every government bully that asks for it.
You seem to think that if the violation of his rights reaches a certain level of severity THEN he should get upset. Exactly what is that line? Is it okay to get raped with a small bat, but not a large one? . . . You have to stand up for yourself even in the small incidents because once you start surrending your rights you set a dangerous trend.
Contrary to your misrepresentation of the article, he was NOT discourteous. He knew the law, knew what he did and did not have to do, and wouldn't allow the officer to violate his rights. He was polite and attempted to educate the officer and the officer was the person who tried to bully him with a threat of arrest if he didn't comply with the officer's unlawful request . . blah blah blah. Did you even READ the article? How did you come to the messed up conclusion that the guy was discourteous? The cop and the store managers were the a$$holes in this story.
NO, my logic is not flawed. The camera did not protect public safety. It did not prevent an accident. At best it can provide evidence after an incident, but it doesn't prevent anything. It's simply a way to provide evidence and a way to increase revenues through ticketing.
The problem with your logic is you assume the guys knows the camera is there and is going to apply any logic to the situation. He obviously isn't since logic would tell anyone that speeding=ticket. He's either distracted or doesn't think he will get caught. The camera doesn't help with the first issue, and since he isn't using logic on the second issue a camera doesn't help there either. If he's willing to risk a ticket then he's willing to risk it. That lack of logic (or calculated risk) is not remedied by a camera.
"The guy buying from Circuit City though was acting suspiciously, so the store employees had the right to try to keep him there until the authorities arrived."
In what way was he acting suspiciously? By purchasing his goods and walking out of the store? By refusing a random bag search? THAT is suspicious? C'mon, they had no right to stop him. It was just standard random search. That store manager is going to get his butt kicked on this one, either through Circuit City themselves, or via the legal system. Probably both.
I still doubt that is the reason they do this. At least with respect to the yellow marker nazis. They don't even look at the receipt or the cart, they just mark the receipt. It's just faux security, designed to intimidate the weak minded and uninformed. It provides no real security against a real shoplifter, they can bypass this stupidity easily. This only punishes the honest customers.
The "club" you mention can require it as a condition of membership, but you can still refuse and their only recourse is to cancel your membership. They can NOT detain your and you do NOT give up your rights to say no. The only difference is they have some ability to "punish" you by cancelling your membership.
They can write whatver they want in the contract, sodomy, rape, physical beatings, etc., but that doesn't mean they have the legal right to do it.
I think any worthwhile attorney could find legitimate damages to sue for in court. In the Circuit City case you could easily say the embarrassment of being arrested because of they wouldn't allow you to leave, and the permanent record of their arrest. In this case the store employees were guilty of false imprisonment and the cop of an unlawful arrest. I'd say there's plenty to run with on this one.
"People who have nothing to hide, once again, co-operate with the police."
Let's make that a bit more accurate. "Sheep who have nothing to hide, once again, co-operate with the police. Then they find that their rights are violated more often by those police. Pretty soon they find themselves living in a police state where they must show their "papers" any time a cop asks, even if THEY ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG!"
The argument you put up can be extended to the illegal wiretapping the gov't is doing, putting cameras in your home or bedroom, etc. I don't want to slam you, but you HAVE to stand up for your rights in life, especially your constitutional civil rights, or soon you will find they are gone!
There's a big problem with your arguement. A speed camera protects nobody's safety. It records the video that can be used to prosecute someone later, but it would not protect anyone from injury. Anyone who is a driver knows they can be fined for speeding. That guy knew it too and he didn't care, was willing to risk it, or was distracted. The camera would have changed NONE of that.
The guy buying from Circuit City had his rights violated by the store employees who detained him in the parking lot, and by the officer who unlawfully arrested him.
I'd like to know the name of this attorney because I may have to use him at some point. This would be one of the few times where money was well spent on an attorney. I shop at Sams and I routinely walk past the receipt Nazis at the door and I've had them chase me and shout at me. Fortunately they're usually little old ladies and that's all they can do, but if they ever detain me I will be more than happy to educate them via the court system.
Yes, I signed the contract, but I'm not giving up my rights. Under the contract they can cancel my membership but they sure can't violate my rights.
"Why do you think Apple is limiting it to the US? Because that's the only place where they'll be able to sell something so underpowered for such a high price."
When it's released and is wildly popular in Europe and gets great reviews as the best UI then I doubt you'll have the stones to admit you were wrong, so I'll say it for you. You don't know what you're talking about.
The Apple iPhone sure is love it or hate it, isn't it? I see you're in the "hate it" crowd.
Aside from my general pro Apple attitude (based on actually using their products) I could point you to countless surveys that have shown overwhelming interest in the iPhone from "most people." No phone has ever generated this much interest before it's launch, no phone has ever sold so many at launch, and no phone has garnered the customer satisfaction numbers from owners. You spin your anger any way you want, but your argument doesn't hold water.
If you hate Apple or the iPhone then just say it rather than making things up.
Slashdot Mirror
Did it ever occur to you that is exactly what he is doing? He polls a large group of vocal and knowledgeable (your comment excluded of course) people and based on their suggestions narrows his search quickly. Not surprising your sig was AC with an asinine comment like that.
I'm sure someone will disagree with this without some link or proof of your source material, but common sense tells me it is 100% accurate. Underpaid people sitting in a control room with cameras for 4-8 hours, however long their shift is, will breed utter boredom with the job after a while. After that it's just a matter of trying to stay awake, and what better way than skirt watching?!
.we may be dogs by nature, but at least we're predictable!
Men. . .
Jeez, your post begs the question, "Why is this idiot so anal?"
I think what blowdart is saying is you're not booting off this "web OS". You've got to have an OS to access the net to get to the "web OS", and if that is the case why access another OS when you're already running an existing OS? And if that was your point blowdart, I agree. I'm not booting my "home OS" to then access a "web OS". It's like driving my car across town so I can get on my bicycle to go just a bit farther.
"Phatpod iPod Nano - Like your sleek device for workouts? Too bad, go get a Shuffle - BONED"
I don't think the dimension changes are earth shattering. It's still a tiny little player, and the total area may be smaller than the old one.
"$.99 ringtone on top of $.99 to buy the song (certain songs only) - BONED"
Have you SEEN what the other wireless carries sell ringtones for? $1.98 is a bargain.
"Starbucks "integration" - now my iPhone will spend a few extra seconds every time I hook up to a Wifi access point looking for coffee music - BONED"
Absolutely no impact on you. You aren't required to do anything.
"We managed to fit really nice HDs in iPods, but not the new Touch iPod - but you get a few millimeters back - BONED"
No matter what the mix in features there's always someone not happy. I see your point to some degree, but I think you're being a bit oversensitive about it.
"$599 to $399 price drop in 2 months - EXTREMELY BONED"
C'mon, you lost all credibility on this one. Who loses in this price drop? Apple? . . . No Consumers? . . . No Early Adopters? . . . No (They rationalized the price and found it acceptable when they bought it. Every new technology goes down in price over time.) This a big deal and is going to crush the attempts of other cell phone makers as they attempt to roll out poor touch screen imitations.
All in all, a pretty good iPod refresh. The iPhone price cut was icing on the cake.
I think this guy needs to go back to college and learn some fundamentals about writing the truth. I can't see one shred of evidence that shows the iPhone's sales have been disappointing. I think this is a well timed move to crush any touchscreen wannabe competitors before they even get off the ground. Apple has the lead on this phone technology right now and I think they will aggressively push to keep all competitors a year or more behind them.
Again, you haven't provided the link. You say it's there then post it. I can post several links that back up my argument about the necessary components to shopkeeper's priveledge.
o plifter.html
1. http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting2.htm
2. http://www.ehow.com/how_2040070_legally-detain-sh
Can you even post one to support yours. You've made up falsehoods about the articel throughout this thread. Back it up with something. I'm at least reading the article and not making up crap about getaway cars and rushing out of the store. You've been spewing BS about this all day and not one iota of it has been fact. Post the link.
Again, where's the link to your definition of shopkeeper's priveledge? Where is the link to a judges guilty verdict based on the criteria you've stated? I've whittled all your arguments down and you either have to put up or shut up (not that I expect you to, you'd rather die now than admit you're wrong).
I've backed up my arguments with facts and the LAW. Plus, my own personal experience at Sams. You've backed yours up with . . . . nothing. This last post of yours is the refuge of the defeated. Give me some facts to back your arguments, you've failed to do that miserably.
Give me a link to your shopkeeper's priveledge site. The list I used agrees with every list I've seen and I'll bet yours doesn't even cover the conditions to satisfy shopkeeper's priveledge.
And no, you didn't catch me in a lie. I've walked out of Sams many times despite their attempt to see my receipt. The legally bound crap only means they can cancel my membership if they want, it doesn't mean I can't walk out. It just means there might be consequences if I do, and I there haven't been any.
You haven't backed one thing you've said with fact. "Rushing out" "Getaway car" blah blah blah. You're so fake. I'm waiting for the proof that judges have decided cases based on your criteria. You still haven't provided that either. Everything you've said has been false.
"If the guy wasn't RUSHING out the door, why did he not simply discuss his RIGHT TO REFUSE to show the receipt to the employee? "
:) "
Because he shouldn't have to stop and deal with their unreasonable request.
"Perhaps you have not shopped at one of these establishments before? There is NOTHING between the registers and the door, no merchandise to steal."
Thanks for making my point. Nothing to steal, so why do I have to show them anything. Duh!?
"There are two reasons you don't want them to look in the bag "
Actually there's a third if you could read, it's because you're a law abiding citizen and you've done nothing wrong. Again, I listed the shopkeeper's priveledge conditions and NONE were met. You've lost the argument for the 30th time.
"I'm willing to bet that a judget is going to see (a) failure to show receipt, (b) failure to stop and talk to the employee, (c) attempted to flee the scene (when he knew the store employee had an issue). "
I'm willing to bet you can't find one case that satisfies the first two arguments. I skip the third because he didn't flee you fool. He walked out, as was his legal right to do as a law abiding citizen.
"I want to see you go to Sam's Club and refuse to show your receipt. Try it!
I've done it several times as I posted on a different thread in this topic. It made the little old lady mad. She shouted at me that she'd call security and I told her to go ahead and do it. Nothing happened. HAHAHAHAHA!!! I guess I already met this condition and you were defeated!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Go ahead lapdog, throw away your rights. I am innocent until proven guilty and I will not be treated like a criminal. If you don't have the balls to stand up to them, fine, just don't mistake my willingness to do it as criminal because it isn't. You're just too willing to roll over and do anything just because they say you have to. You don't even deserve those rights.
You didn't even look it up. These are the conditions:
You must see the shoplifter approach your merchandise
You must see the shoplifter select your merchandise
You must see the shoplifter conceal or carry away or convert your merchandise
You must maintain continuous observation the shoplifter
You must see the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store
Next time look it up and understand what you're talking about. The Circuit City employee did not meet any of these criteria based on the article. Jeez you're ridiculous.
"he was ASKED to show proof of purchase and HE FAILED to do so. He WALKED OUT, the employee ASKED him to come back, he did not respond"
They can ask, but he does NOt have to do any of those other things. Can't you read? HE DID NOTHING WRONG!
Who says it's common courtesy to show the receipt? You don't show it at most stores do you, only the ones that ask. Why don't you show it all stores genius? I know, it's because it is not required and not common courtesy.
You're a fool whose liberties will soon be stripped away because of your ignorance (and apparent ability to read and comprehend the law). You've lost the argument. Step down, next case!
As I've said before I do get your point, or lack of it. There IS a reason to not show the receipt. He made a lawful purchase and did nothing wrong, so why should he be required to prove his innocence? He shouldn't. The harm is allowing stores to create policies that treat you like crap when you've done nothing wrong. I've said that before too.
As for your shopkeeper's priveledge research, you may want to do it again because you didn't read it very well. They have to meet certain conditions to invoke that and they did not meet them so they are NOT allowed to detain him. There is not reasonable suspicion here. He paid for his purchase and WALKED OUT. That is not reasonable suspicion.
Your fire lane argument is lame. You're resorting to that to try and salvage your losing argument. IF it had been illegally parked the cop would have been an ass and nailed them for that too. He was already being an ass in unlawfully arresting the guy. Duh!
"HE ACTED SUSPICIOUSLY and got himself into this mess."
He did not and you know it. YOUR willingness to submit to poor customer treatment does not make his refusal to submit to it suspicious. It just means you're a lapdog that will do what you're told and he and I are not. If you're trying to make the argument that exercising your rights as a consumer and a citizen makes you suspicious then you have lost all reason. Bend over and spread your cheeks next time. After all, YOU'RE innocent and you don't want to be suspicious!
"So the speed cameras are BETTER than no speed cameras"
No, they're not. They give too much power to the government. The drawbacks outweight the benefits.
Walking is NOT rushing. So yes, you are making facts up.
"You hand over the receipt, they have now seen the proof of purchase, you are not a shop lifter, they have no reason to look at the bag."
The receipt without looking at the bag is useless. So the choice is to hand them a receipt with no cross check to the bag, which is just a cheesy form of intimidation with no real loss prevention substance (and NOT legally required) or you have to give them the bag too. Either way it is NOT required by law, shopkeeper's priveledge does NOT give them the right to detain you without probably cause, so that man acted lawfully and the store employee detaining him was unlawful. The store employee who broke the law should be arrested, not the guy who followed the law. Didn't I tell you to look up shopkeeper's priveledge or are you just unwilling to learn something and admit your interpretation of the law is incorrect?
"Since you don't think he was acting suspicious, tell me what the harm is in letting them see the receipt? The guy was being a smart ass"
What is the harm in a strip search then? I mean you're innnocent, why not submit to that? Because by law you don't have to so why should you. If you want to be treated like a criminal then fine, be a sheep and hand over your receipt. I'm not doing it because I am innocent and shouldn't be treated like a criminal by default. And saying "no thank you" is not being a smart ass. That's a complete lack of logic. It is at worst a polite refusal, but not being a smart ass. Playing dumb is not being a smart ass. He had done nothing wrong so he shouldn't be required to address the situation unless the store employee escalated the situation in some way. He may have showed polite indifference to the request, but he shouldn't have had to address it at all if the store would treat their customers with respect.
As I've said before, 98% of the people here disagree with you. The law is on their, mine, and this customer's side. You are wrong. Freedom isn't free. You actually have to work for it sometimes.
You're wrong on SO many points, and it's been enumerated many times in this Slashdot threads for this story. The store has the right to ASK to see the receipt, but that is it. Did you read that? They can ask, but they can't force you to. "You have the right to say no, but then you also have the obligation to prove that you are not a shop lifter." No, I do not have the obligation to prove that. THEY have the obligation to show that they have probably cause to believe a theft occured, and that means seeing merchandise stolen, continued observance, failure to pay. They ALL have to happen. Look up shopkeeper's priveledge. Your assumption that I am guilty until proven innocent is false. "Run out of the store to a getaway car?" And where in the article did it say there was a getaway car? Did it have the words "getaway car" on the side? Or maybe just the words "shoplifter taxi"? It was just a car. His dad drove him so he let him off at the curb and picked him up there. There's nothing unlawful in that and a customer should not be detained if they have done nothing unlawful. The store employees were wrong to detain him. Period. You have no leg to stand on with that argument. "The stores DO have the right to inspect all receipts," No they don't. Show me that law? I'll wait. Please learn what you're talking about instead of making things up. "That is not unreasonable, and there is absolutely NO REASON for someone to refuse to show a receipt." Actually we can see from this case that there IS a reason. I would say that well over 98% of the Slashdot posts on this article have agreed that there is a reason. He was an honest consumer making a purchase and he shouldn't have to submit to the request to be searched in any form unless they had probably cause that he stole something. Refusing to show a receipt is NOT probably cause. Getting into a lawfully parked car is NOT probable cause. "But not showing the receipt implies they are hiding something." Only in a society where you are guilty until proven innocent. Unless we fight crap like this we will soon live in that society, hence the person standing up for his rights (and yours and mine by extension). "sometimes the little guy is not entirely innocent." Sometimes they are not. In this case he was. He did NOTHING wrong. Everything he did was lawful and in return he was unlawfully detained by the store and unlawfully arrested by the cop. THAT has been the point of this whole article. He did nothing unlawful and he was subjected to unlawful behavior by the store and the cop. Perhaps you should READ the article again yourself because a third grader could figure this out?
"speeding = ticket, logic tells people speeding = risk of ticket"
That's what I was saying. But since he ran a risk of a ticket if he was speeding anyway then he wasn't really applying logic to his behavior, was he? Soooooo, lack of logic without cameras does not mean he'll suddenly use logic if cameras are there. His behavior was illogical, with or without cameras. He runs the risk of a ticket if he speeds. Sooo, you seem to think "Had there been speed cameras, the guy (unless he is a complete idiot) would not have been speeding". I'm saying he obviously WAS an idiot and cameras wouldn't have helped.
"So their complete LACK of respect for other people, and their self-centered nature makes it alright for them to speed down the road however fast they like. It is the very nature of people that we need speed cameras."
That personality type you describe is not necessarily going to be motivated by the camera. Some may be, some won't be. The personality type you mention is obviously in his own world and a camera doesn't change that. In the meantime it opens the possibility of abuse by the government and that is a tradeoff I do not like. Probably minimal gains and a huge potential for abuse.
"He wasn't refusing a random bag search, he was asked to present his receipt as he left the store. He said no thanks and continued walking. The guy was trying to be a smart ass, and he got nailed for it."
A few flaws in your logic. First, as soon as you hand over the receipt the next question is obviously to examine the bag. You admit that yourself later in your post, "Now had he shown the receipt and they demanded to search his bag, that is then debatable." I mean it makes no sense to get the receipt and not look in the bag. And once you hand over YOUR receipt, you won't get it back until you hand over the bag. What would his options be then? Second, you just admitted that he said "no thank you" which is hardly being a smart ass. He was asked to do something that he knew he wasn't required to do and he POLITELY declined. So your sentence, if accurate, should read, "He politely refused to submit to an unnecessary search and he was unlawfully detained and arrested."
"he left the store in a suspicious manner"
No, he walked out after making his purchase at the cashier. Hardly suspicious.
"He shouldn't have rushed out of the store"
He didn't rush out. The blog says he walked, YOU said he walked. Quit making things up. Walking is not illegal nor suspicious.
"its usually a good idea to show the guy the receipt on your way out so if they attempt to tackle you in the parking lot later, you can say, well I did show the guy the receipt and sue the pants off them"
Are you serious? Show them the receipt so hopefully they won't TACKLE you? You just don't get it do you? By law he is not required to show his receipt or submit to a bag search. I don't give a f@%# what the store policy is, the law trumps it. I'm not sure you are capable of understanding what freedom really means. Freedom from violations of your rights. Freedom of having to submit to unlawful searches and seizures. Freedom of innocent, law-biding consumers from being harassed all in the name of the corporations bottom line.
Since you're so ready to do their bidding maybe you should hand over your receipt, drop your pants and spread your cheeks for a cavity search. I mean let's think about it, if you were a smart shoplifter wouldn't that be the perfect place to hide something.
Do you even stop to read your own post before submitting it?
"There is nothing wrong with being courtious to the police."
It's not being discourteous to the police when you stand up for your rights. I suppose a person is being discourteous if they don't submit to the baton and pepper spray? It seems the officer had a problem being courteous to a civilian and he decided he would arrest someone for no reason than he didn't instantly kiss the officer's ass and allow his rights to be violated?
"The police officer isn't pointing the gun to your head, or acting crazy"
He isn't? It seems to me he essentially is. He's saying, "Do anything I tell you, even if you're not legally obligated, or I'll arrest you on bogus charges to ruin your day." The substance of the officer's acts are the same, it's only the degree of the offense that was slightly different than what you asked. The cop was full of himself and punished someone unlawfully because he could get away with it. In case you don't understand, THAT IS WRONG!
"You are not giving up any rights when you identify yourself to the police. "
He DID identify himself to the police. He gave his name. The license issue IS a big deal because you ARE giving up your rights. Your right to go through life without having to produce your "papers" to every government bully that asks for it.
You seem to think that if the violation of his rights reaches a certain level of severity THEN he should get upset. Exactly what is that line? Is it okay to get raped with a small bat, but not a large one? . . . You have to stand up for yourself even in the small incidents because once you start surrending your rights you set a dangerous trend.
Contrary to your misrepresentation of the article, he was NOT discourteous. He knew the law, knew what he did and did not have to do, and wouldn't allow the officer to violate his rights. He was polite and attempted to educate the officer and the officer was the person who tried to bully him with a threat of arrest if he didn't comply with the officer's unlawful request . . blah blah blah. Did you even READ the article? How did you come to the messed up conclusion that the guy was discourteous? The cop and the store managers were the a$$holes in this story.
NO, my logic is not flawed. The camera did not protect public safety. It did not prevent an accident. At best it can provide evidence after an incident, but it doesn't prevent anything. It's simply a way to provide evidence and a way to increase revenues through ticketing.
The problem with your logic is you assume the guys knows the camera is there and is going to apply any logic to the situation. He obviously isn't since logic would tell anyone that speeding=ticket. He's either distracted or doesn't think he will get caught. The camera doesn't help with the first issue, and since he isn't using logic on the second issue a camera doesn't help there either. If he's willing to risk a ticket then he's willing to risk it. That lack of logic (or calculated risk) is not remedied by a camera.
"The guy buying from Circuit City though was acting suspiciously, so the store employees had the right to try to keep him there until the authorities arrived."
In what way was he acting suspiciously? By purchasing his goods and walking out of the store? By refusing a random bag search? THAT is suspicious? C'mon, they had no right to stop him. It was just standard random search. That store manager is going to get his butt kicked on this one, either through Circuit City themselves, or via the legal system. Probably both.
I still doubt that is the reason they do this. At least with respect to the yellow marker nazis. They don't even look at the receipt or the cart, they just mark the receipt. It's just faux security, designed to intimidate the weak minded and uninformed. It provides no real security against a real shoplifter, they can bypass this stupidity easily. This only punishes the honest customers.
The "club" you mention can require it as a condition of membership, but you can still refuse and their only recourse is to cancel your membership. They can NOT detain your and you do NOT give up your rights to say no. The only difference is they have some ability to "punish" you by cancelling your membership.
They can write whatver they want in the contract, sodomy, rape, physical beatings, etc., but that doesn't mean they have the legal right to do it.
I think any worthwhile attorney could find legitimate damages to sue for in court. In the Circuit City case you could easily say the embarrassment of being arrested because of they wouldn't allow you to leave, and the permanent record of their arrest. In this case the store employees were guilty of false imprisonment and the cop of an unlawful arrest. I'd say there's plenty to run with on this one.
"People who have nothing to hide, once again, co-operate with the police."
Let's make that a bit more accurate. "Sheep who have nothing to hide, once again, co-operate with the police. Then they find that their rights are violated more often by those police. Pretty soon they find themselves living in a police state where they must show their "papers" any time a cop asks, even if THEY ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG!"
The argument you put up can be extended to the illegal wiretapping the gov't is doing, putting cameras in your home or bedroom, etc. I don't want to slam you, but you HAVE to stand up for your rights in life, especially your constitutional civil rights, or soon you will find they are gone!
There's a big problem with your arguement. A speed camera protects nobody's safety. It records the video that can be used to prosecute someone later, but it would not protect anyone from injury. Anyone who is a driver knows they can be fined for speeding. That guy knew it too and he didn't care, was willing to risk it, or was distracted. The camera would have changed NONE of that.
The guy buying from Circuit City had his rights violated by the store employees who detained him in the parking lot, and by the officer who unlawfully arrested him.
I'd like to know the name of this attorney because I may have to use him at some point. This would be one of the few times where money was well spent on an attorney. I shop at Sams and I routinely walk past the receipt Nazis at the door and I've had them chase me and shout at me. Fortunately they're usually little old ladies and that's all they can do, but if they ever detain me I will be more than happy to educate them via the court system.
Yes, I signed the contract, but I'm not giving up my rights. Under the contract they can cancel my membership but they sure can't violate my rights.
"Why do you think Apple is limiting it to the US? Because that's the only place where they'll be able to sell something so underpowered for such a high price."
When it's released and is wildly popular in Europe and gets great reviews as the best UI then I doubt you'll have the stones to admit you were wrong, so I'll say it for you. You don't know what you're talking about.
The Apple iPhone sure is love it or hate it, isn't it? I see you're in the "hate it" crowd.
Aside from my general pro Apple attitude (based on actually using their products) I could point you to countless surveys that have shown overwhelming interest in the iPhone from "most people." No phone has ever generated this much interest before it's launch, no phone has ever sold so many at launch, and no phone has garnered the customer satisfaction numbers from owners. You spin your anger any way you want, but your argument doesn't hold water.
If you hate Apple or the iPhone then just say it rather than making things up.