37637598 on 4/9/2007 at 06:48
What a waste of time and resources he's caused. I believe in fighting for your rights, but that's not what he was doing here. He was just creating a big fuss for no reason at all. He was within his rights the whole time, but if he was really concerned with things like rights and such, he would be spending less time wasting peoples time, and more time helping others. If he was actually being accused of somthing to begin with, then I would understand, but he specifically (in some form) says "They shouldn't treat their loyal customers like this", but if the store has no clue who the f he is, then how are they supposed to judge who to ask for a reciept, and who not to. Then that would creat an even bigger problem of people picking and choosing who to check on, and creating a whole new world of racism and generalizations.
37637598 on 4/9/2007 at 06:49
Quote Posted by 37637598
What a waste of time and resources he's caused. I believe in fighting for your rights, but that's not what he was doing here. He was just creating a big fuss for no reason at all. He was within his rights the whole time, but if he was really concerned with things like rights and such, he would be spending less time wasting peoples time, and more time helping others. If he was actually being accused of somthing to begin with, then I would understand, but he specifically (in some form) says "They shouldn't treat their loyal customers like this", but if the store has no clue who the f he is, then how are they supposed to judge who to ask for a reciept, and who not to. Then that would creat an even bigger problem of people picking and choosing who to check on, and creating a whole new world of racism and generalizations.
You idiot, he wasn't creating the fuss, the store clerk was! Just take the advice of the poll and leave!
aguywhoplaysthief on 4/9/2007 at 08:24
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.
If you don't like the policies, don't shop there. There's nothing heroic about going on to private property to start a pissing match with with owner, especially when the store policies are clearly in practice, and have been common practice for some time.
Oskar Cruo on 4/9/2007 at 08:27
In my opinion, he did the right thing. I hope he pays hes dad back tho. :)
We have the right to disagree in everything, even if it's "against the law" (if you feel that your point is right).
Scots Taffer on 4/9/2007 at 09:58
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.
You see, this is where I think another vein of discussion lies, aside from the RAA-RAA MY RIGHTS argument and the ISNT HE A COCK tangents, is to what extent a consumer's rights come into play. In the UK these door-checks weren't around, but you get the odd one in Australia but only in those warehouse-type stores - generally though, these stores are a one entrance/exit affair, so I guess it's partly justified.
In my opinion, you get around the fuss of making a paying loyal customer not only wait through a queue to pay for his goods, but pay for the goods and can only rightfully exit the store when accosted for his receipt like a) he's a common shoplifter and b) when he's just that second walked away from the tills, by having a simple cordon constructed between one of the exits and the general public entrance/exit for browsers/shoplifters.
Plus, isn't that more cost-effective than paying someone to stand there and check bags, not to mention being a bit pointless with the money spent on security cameras and electronic tagging? Overkill, perhaps? Is the invasion of their customer's baggage and so on entirely necessary?
*Zaccheus* on 4/9/2007 at 12:50
I say good for him.
Heaven help him if he gets it wrong though
That article says the law only requires them to state their name:
Quote Posted by azdailysun
The ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, like driver's licenses
In the UK it is getting quite tricky to know the law because the police are given more and more discretionary powers.
scumble on 4/9/2007 at 13:19
Trying to skirt around the question of whether this chap was a tad insensitive or not, I'd say it's the behaviour of the police officer that's most telling - it looks to me more of a challenging authority thing. Although there was apparently no legal basis for slapping on the cuffs, the officer decided to find some way of asserting authority. It only seems to matter what the opinion of the police officer is at the time.
Still, I have to say that store owners do have certain rights to protect their own property, and perhaps this guy is getting mixed up between a store chain trying to prevent theft and a police officer being a git. The fact that the police officer sided with the store may indicate some preference towards "the big guy", but it's difficult to say it goes further than a common thread of police officers assuming guilt rather than innocence. I suspect this is partly down to the arrogance of authority, and probably partly dealing with scumbags half the time.
Quote Posted by Scots
Is the invasion of their customer's baggage and so on entirely necessary?
Maybe not, but up to a certain point the store can set the terms of entry. I mean, boiling it down further, we're talking about it potentially being a right to not being slightly offended at the implication you might have nicked something. Then again, should we be saying that property owners have the right to physically restrain people from leaving if they don't conform to some silly policy.
On the other hand, maybe this store's staff got a bollocking for letting a load of stock "disappear" and they are just trying to look like they're making an effort.
I'm sure these things could be worked out without people getting arrested though. Stubbornness all round makes it difficult for people to resolve conflicts like this.
Wynne on 4/9/2007 at 13:26
As someone who works in retail (but not for much longer) and has for five years, while I've run after people to politely ask them to stay and allow me to see their receipt, I find the store employees' actions appalling. The most I've done is take a person's information--which register they went to, what item seems to be causing the problem--and in some cases, help them avoid further annoyance by deactivating the item at the closest register. I always apologize for detaining them, smile, and treat them like normal people. My store has a policy of not being assholes who assume their customers are all thieves, because 99% of the people you stop will be innocent people needlessly annoyed or made nervous.
I would never run after someone and physically prevent them from leaving. Neither would my managers, because (duh) this can lead to lawsuits! Not to mention bad press and hard feelings of loyal customers.
The only time a manager at my store would in any way get in someone's face like that is when we have evidence on tape clearly proving they've stolen, in which case the police are already on the premises and waiting for them anyway.
As somebody who experienced brainwashing for about the first twenty years of her life, I think it's a dangerous thing when we are expected to do whatever someone in authority says just because they say it. People have rights for a reason, and the police must remember that, and respect it.
Turtle on 4/9/2007 at 13:58
If the store wants to enforce their 'right' to check customers as they leave the premises, that's fine.
However, they need to have that policy clearly posted so customers can see it before they enter into a transaction with the store.
