Swiss Mercenary on 7/9/2007 at 17:10
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Not having to show the police your driver's license one thing, but having a major malfunction over showing a receipt to a store clerk
while you're on their property seems pretty nonsensical to me.
Just because he stepped on private property does not mean that he just gave up his right to not be subjected to random searches, regardless of what store policy is. Hell, if there was a store policy that everyone enters the store becomes a slave, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't hold up in court too well.
What the store CAN do to enforce such policies, is ban him from the store, unless he complies to them (As if he does not, and remains, that would be trespassing). However, they have not done so, and even then, compliance to policy is voluntary (at the risk of being banned).
Quote:
But I think we can all agree that the store's manager isn't an agent of the government, which means the whole "unreasonable search and seizure" thing doesn't apply here, because that's not what's being violated.
Does that mean I have the right to stop and search random people on the street, because I'm not an agent of the government?
Whether or not he's on private property or not is irrelevant to this point.
Quote:
I don't see verifying a transaction at the door as being significantly different from verifying your credit card, check, or even cash at the register.
Prior to making the transaction, you are holding the store's property, in your hands. You may only take it past the cash register, without being considered a thief, after paying for it.
AFTER making the transaction, you are holding your own property, in your hands. At this point, it's your property, and it's nobody else's business as to what you will do with it.
LesserFollies on 7/9/2007 at 18:01
Quote Posted by Wynne
That's not what it sounded like. I got the impression he was pretty calm throughout.
I think his actions pretty much bespeak his attitude. And I still think his demeanor must have had something to do with how the situation escalated. We have only HIS word on his own calmness, remember.
Quote Posted by Wynne
I see your reasons for that, but that only sounds good to me
as long as a warning that this may happen was clearly posted! It's one thing if I know that the store in question does this and that I should keep my receipt in plain view as I walk out the door. It's another if I had thought not setting off the alarm meant I was fine, and felt singled out due to possible prejudice--that might make me resist showing a receipt, too.
Did it say anywhere in his narrative whether he felt singled out? Was the security guy checking everyone's receipts? And for that matter, he never said whether there WAS a sign or not. Maybe there was. He even states that he had previously "dealt with these scare tactics at ... other Circuit Cities," meaning he knew they did that.
edited: for grammar and to quote him exactly
*Zaccheus* on 7/9/2007 at 18:20
Quote Posted by LesserFollies
We have only HIS word on his own calmness, remember.
You could argue that we only have his word that the whole thing happened at all.
:p
Martek on 7/9/2007 at 18:36
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Does that mean I have the right to stop and search random people on the street, because I'm not an agent of the government?
Whether or not he's on private property or not is irrelevant to this point.
Well that's obviously not the case (as surely you know); but obviousness aside, your interpretation is off.
You would better interpret it as "you would be violating some different thing; not that thing.".
Thus I don't get your point at all.
LesserFollies on 7/9/2007 at 20:52
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
You could argue that we only have his word that the whole thing happened at all.
:p
Actually, if he's telling the truth, it would be a matter of public record. But I see your point. MY original point was, you can quite "calmly" have a bad attitude. Or, in this instance, an inappropriate one. They're not mutually exclusive.
mopgoblin on 7/9/2007 at 21:50
Quote Posted by LesserFollies
As a woman, I wouldn't mind having my purse "rummaged through" (Oh my god! He saw my tampons!!! My precious privacy!!!) if it meant I wouldn't have to pay higher prices for merchandise because of shoplifters.
Tampons are far from the worst case. Depending on what you happen to be carrying, it potentially reveals all sorts of things about you - full name, address, phone number, job, family status, future appointments, financial information, medical information, sexual orientation... there are plenty of good reasons a person might want to keep much of that private, even if it removes the (rather dubious) possibility of lower prices. Also, what happens if one of the items in the purse was legally acquired elsewhere (or on a previous visit to the store) but is indistinguishable from an item the store sells?
Al_B on 7/9/2007 at 22:06
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Tampons are far from the worst case. Depending on what you happen to be carrying, it potentially reveals all sorts of things about you - full name, address, phone number, job, family status, future appointments, financial information, medical information, sexual orientation... there are plenty of good reasons a person might want to keep much of that private, even if it removes the (rather dubious) possibility of lower prices. Also, what happens if one of the items in the purse was legally acquired elsewhere (or on a previous visit to the store) but is indistinguishable from an item the store sells?
From my point of view much of that information is what needs to be revealed on almost a daily basis as a part of doing business. Would I be worried about a police officer searching my briefcase (or handbag if I were a woman)? No. If it were so sensitive or embarrasing I wouldn't carry it around with me in the first place in such an obvious manner.
In terms of bags being searched / looked through when leaving a shop - at least one DIY chain in the UK does that. To date it's probably taken about 20 seconds of my time in total and I've never felt intimidated by it.
Swiss Mercenary on 7/9/2007 at 22:09
Because if you are innocent, you have nothing to hide, right?
SubJeff on 7/9/2007 at 22:11
What shop is that then Al_B? Never happened to me.
I think mop is talking about sales people, not the police, looking through your bags. Lord knows I don't want some of the dodgy mofos that run tills in the UK looking through my stuff!
Also - WHAT THE HELL WITH ALL THIS QUOTING A POST DIRECTLY ABOVE YOURS? This disease is all over the forum. This isn't PA forums ffs. Not directed just at you, Al_B, but still at you. Too.
DinkyDogg on 7/9/2007 at 22:20
Just a warning - Costco and a few other stores have a written policy that you agree to if you purchase a membership that gives them the right to inspect your bag as you leave. Refusing a bag check looks like it's legal at Circuit City and Fry's, but be careful at stores where you have a membership agreement.
