fett on 7/9/2007 at 01:40
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
No, I was ridiculing your "bet he doesn't give to the widdle children" nonsense.
Sure, there are far more serious rights violations going on all the time. Being asked to get out of a seat on a bus isn't really that big of an issue compared to many of the rights violations that were going on at the time and which continue worldwide. But that's just it - it's not what it IS, it's what it represents.
I agree. It's the principal of the thing, as always, but the whole display comes off as a little wimpy IMO. He stood up to the big bad retail store manager. I just think if it was THAT big of a deal to the guy (beyond blog fodder) he'd have actually made a stand for civil rights that amounted to something other than ruining his sisters birthday. :p
Dia on 7/9/2007 at 02:01
So; does this guy have the legal grounds to sue said store and the police dept.? Afterall, the charges (ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official's offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties.) sound pretty weak and even I (a non-lawyer) question how the guy was preventing, obstructing, and/or delaying the cop's investigation after he'd already let the cop search the bag and see the receipt to prove he'd bought the merchandise. Once the cop saw that the stuff was bought & paid for that should have been that. Arresting him just seemed more than a little over the top. (That's the part that really irritates me.)
And does his sister have the right to sue him for ruining her birthday?
And where's RBJ when you really need him?
Turtle on 7/9/2007 at 02:42
Quote Posted by Dia
And where's RBJ when you really need him?
Oh, he won't be helping out up in here, he's
corporate.
Nigga, done forgot what life is like on
da streets.Tocky on 7/9/2007 at 03:03
Gotsta give props to mopgobblin though. He fills the hole with less bodies laying about. Wait. Is that a good thing?
Ko0K on 7/9/2007 at 04:04
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
There isn't very much to counter these problems at present, unfortunately. It is very rare for anything to effectively communicate to a police officer that an action is not justified. The most effective way to do this would be to deal much more thoroughly and harshly with unjustified use of violence, unjustified or spurious arrests, and other unreasonable actions taken by police, and to assume that police officers are not intrinsically more trustworthy than anyone else. This has to apply to all abuses of power, no matter how minor - indeed, the mere <em>existence</em> of the more serious cases shows that we're failing badly at this. I don't see any other way to prevent the formation of a culture of violence, or the emergence of a notion of infallibility regarding the police.
You say you don't see any other way to prevent a violent trend, but earlier in your post you brought up the effect of long exposures to violence on the mind. After all, violence starts with violent thoughts. I'd think that encouraging mental health counseling would be one of the other ways. The tricky thing about that is, though, that few would see therapists unless it is made mandatory, and good luck trying to force anybody to see a shrink.
Pyrian on 7/9/2007 at 07:49
I really feel like I'm not being read. Seriously, I can respond to every disagreement by simply quoting myself, usually from the post people were supposedly contesting.
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
The right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is usually taken to imply, at a minimum, that no person acting as an agent of the government, or exercising any power conferred on them by law, may search a person or their property without either probable cause (in this case, a genuine and reasonable belief that you're trying to steal something), or the consent of the person being searched.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Certainly I've never heard of any right to not be frisked for weapons, which is what that "right" would imply.
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
What suspected crime would that be?
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I mean, c'mon, both sides were blunt about the cop being surprised that the bag he didn't want searched didn't contain contraband.
Quote Posted by Turtle
Equally, I would argue that the store employee does not have the right to search a person just because they were in their store.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
BTW, by simply stating that a transaction is not complete until it is verified (hardly an unreasonable requirement), the store could very well be completely within its rights.
Quote Posted by Tonamel
I'm not learned enough about the legalities of this, but it's more about how people (as in normal, everyday people) aren't allowed to rummage through your personal effects without your consent. I'm sure the women here would agree that they'd never let Circuit City Guy rummage through their purses to look for a stolen iPod Shuffle, so why does it make a difference that it's a shopping bag being looked through instead of a purse?
The guy's paid for it, so it's no longer the concern of the store.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
BTW, by simply stating that a transaction is not complete until it is verified (hardly an unreasonable requirement), the store could very well be completely within its rights.
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. You conveniently decide the transaction is over at the register in order to make your point, but the store is within its rights to dictate the procedure of the transaction. If you don't like having the bag checked at the door, you're free to return it and get your money back.
LesserFollies on 7/9/2007 at 12:55
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. Do you people have any idea how much retailers lose to shoplifters? And how much prices are increased because of it? I admit, in a perfect world we wouldn't have to suffer such minor indignities. But this particular minor indignity has a reason: to prevent loss. What about the erosion of rights that truly has no reasonable defense? I want this guy to wear baggy pants in Louisiana:
(
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295715,00.html)
or a miniskirt on a plane:
(
http://blogs.usatoday.com/sky/2007/09/whats-appropria.html)
... and fight these truly jaw-droppingly ridiculous violations of rights, then I'll call him a hero. But pitching a hissy-fit about a store security policy? No.
mopgoblin on 7/9/2007 at 13:23
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Certainly I've never heard of any right to not be frisked for weapons, which is what that "right" would imply.
Under most circumstances in which this applies, I expect the argument would be that you are consenting to a search - in many cases, consent does not need to be explicit, nor is it necessary to inform the person being searched that they can refuse a search. It's much the same as the application of consent in other situations. When you play a game of rugby, you don't usually ask each player on the other team to consent to the use of physical force. When you have sex, under normal circumstances, you don't have to explicitly ask your partner to obtain consent. In both cases, a reasonable belief that the affected parties give their consent is sufficient. If you say "Let's play a game of rugby", and your friends follow you onto the field and form teams, it's pretty unlikely that they're expecting anything other than a game of rugby. If you clearly intend to have sex with someone capable of consent, and they're not giving any indication that they don't consent, and there's no explicit or implicit threat, it's probably reasonable to assume that they give their consent. Similarly, if you're in a situation such that you should reasonably know that a person intends to search you, you are not being threatened, and you do not object or resist, they could have a reasonable belief that you are consenting to a search.
The notion of consent can get a bit dicey when someone with apparent authority is involved, especially when they don't explicitly inform you that you have the option of withholding consent. I'm not exactly sure what could constitute consent to a search in such a situation, and it may well vary significantly between jurisdictions, but explicitly stating that you do not consent to a search is pretty clear.
In some other situations, you could be searched without giving consent. As I stated in my earlier post, this would usually require probable cause - in this case some evidence, obtained prior to the search, providing reasonable suspicion that you're illegally carrying a weapon. Searching a person for weapons after an arrest might be another exception, but I'm not sure about the details in that situation.
Quote:
I mean, c'mon, both sides were blunt about the cop being surprised that the bag he didn't want searched didn't contain contraband.
The situation (as it has been presented to us, at least) did not provide enough evidence to constitute probable cause regarding theft. I said this in the sentence immediately after the one you quoted. I also stated (earlier in the same post) that refusing to consent to a search cannot create probable cause - if that was not the case, then the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure would be of no effect.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
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. You conveniently decide the transaction is over at the register in order to make your point, but the store is within its rights to dictate the procedure of the transaction. If you don't like having the bag checked at the door, you're free to return it and get your money back.
Assuming that the applicable law is reasonably similar to that of New Zealand, the title to the goods is transferred under conditions agreed to by the parties to the transaction, yes. However, if the intended conditions are not clear, this most likely defaults to either the time at which the sale is agreed upon, or the time at which specific goods are assigned to the transaction and ready to be delivered. If it falls to either of those cases, by the time you're walking out the door with the goods then the transaction is over and cannot be reversed without the agreement of both parties, thus consent (or probable cause) would still be required for a search.
There is another aspect to consider: I'm not sure of the extent to which a provision requiring consent to a search can be legally binding (consent to certain future actions can be revoked or otherwise invalidated before those actions happen), and what effect that could have on the contract.
Wynne on 7/9/2007 at 14:33
Quote Posted by LesserFollies
Walking around with a "fuck the authorities, I know my rights" attitude is just asking for trouble.
That's not what it sounded like. I got the impression he was pretty calm throughout.
Quote:
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.
Let me add a "damn straight" to that comment. And of course it's not as if they would post that, because they know that people wouldn't choose to come in the store for that very reason--not liking harassment. I sure as hell would be uncomfortable about walking into a place with a sign posted reading "ALL CUSTOMERS ARE SUBJECT TO BAG SEARCHES AT THE MANAGEMENT'S DISCRETION. PLEASE HAVE YOUR RECEIPT READY." But at least then I would know, and that's the only fair way to deal with people.
Quote:
By wasting the time of a police officer who i'm sure has much more important things to attend to?
Right, more important things to do than get creepy harassing managers off the cars of innocent families. Like arresting a guy for calling for help after confirming he hasn't stolen anything. I've met
real police officers, I've met people who actually want to protect and serve--those guys
do have more important things to do than treat law-abiding citizens standing up for their rights like common criminals.
I live in a town of roughly 3,300 people (seriously) and our police force--and our store, which is nevertheless a large chain (the nearest other large chain is a 30-minute drive away; same goes for movie theaters)--would NEVER pull this kind of stupid crap because they actually know the law well enough to realize it's not going to wash, and their interest is in catching actual criminals, not upsetting loyal customers. When you're a large chain like Circuit City, you have security cameras to capture faces and possibly even license plates, you can work with police to catch actual criminals, and you have security devices installed in electronic equipment to signal when someone has not had it deactivated at a register; there's no call to go chasing after people.
Quote:
Every available resource counts when it comes to life-threatening situations, and paramedics and cops are not quite fond of people who abuse the rapid response system.
I see what you're saying, but notice the police officer didn't mention that as a reason for arresting him, and notice the store employees were
physically preventing the car from moving--to the point where they would've had to risk injuring someone to get away, which they weren't willing to do, which points to them not being criminals in the first place.
To me, having two people grabbing onto my vehicle refusing to get off it is scary enough (because honestly, what kind of a freak do you have to be in order to decide to risk getting run over for this crap?) that I would consider calling the police. Granted, if I were singled out when I hadn't even set off a security device alarm, I'd probably just coldly show them my receipt to avoid a fuss, then tell the jackasses not only would I not be coming back again but I'd make sure everyone I knew understood how I'd been treated, leading to a monetary loss which tends to affect corporations more than anything else... but I can't blame a person for being principled enough to defer allowing people to infringe on his rights as a citizen.
Hmm, Righi is an Italian name... maybe due to his coloring, he is mistaken for an Arab at times and was getting sick of it.
Quote:
I know cops have an awful job.
That is very true. And yeah, maybe there are more important battles to fight than this one, but the fact is, not all cops are like your friend. They're human just like everybody else, and probably most became cops to protect and serve, but there are always a few idiots who make the others look bad by going on power trips. I think those should be treated appropriately until they either get it straight or get a different job.
Oh, not that I'm giving Righi any damn money, you understand. It's his battle.
Quote:
He does not have the right to walk out of the store without having store property checked. I'm dubious as to whether he has the right to walk out of the store without even his own property being checked; "unreasonable search and seizure" does not usually extend that far. Certainly I've never heard of any right to not be frisked for weapons, which is what that "right" would imply.
Assuming you are not a cop, if I walk onto your property at your invitation, into your house, and then I am attempting to leave your house, is it perfectly all right for you to forcibly detain me by blocking my exit until I agree that you can search my purse to make sure I didn't steal from you? Somehow that doesn't seem right to me. Sure, it's your property, but it's my purse and my pockets. You have the right to defend yourself from a stranger breaking into your home, but you don't have the right to do whatever you want to someone you invited to your house just because it's your property.
Quote:
So; does this guy have the legal grounds to sue said store and the police dept.? Afterall, the charges sound pretty weak and even I (a non-lawyer) question how the guy was preventing, obstructing, and/or delaying the cop's investigation after he'd already let the cop search the bag and see the receipt to prove he'd bought the merchandise. Once the cop saw that the stuff was bought & paid for that should have been that. Arresting him just seemed more than a little over the top. (That's the part that really irritates me.)
And does his sister have the right to sue him for ruining her birthday?
Word to every word of that. I won't judge not knowing, but I hope he really had a good personal justification for this and that he REALLY worked his ass off to make it up to his sister.
Quote:
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. Do you people have any idea how much retailers lose to shoplifters? And how much prices are increased because of it?
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.
Rug Burn Junky on 7/9/2007 at 16:24
Quote Posted by Turtle
Nigga, done forgot what life is like on
da streets.Bitch, there ain't no street but Wall Street.
To be honest, I can't type anything in this thread without laughing hysterically at how ridiculously misguided that Pyrian is. But, I don't need to, because you already did my job for me: [INDENT]
Quote:
In this case I think it would be unlawful detention for the CC employees and unlawful arrest for the police officer.
[/INDENT] That's the point people are missing. This isn't about some 4th amendment search and seizure issue, it's about their ability to detain if you say "I'm walking out of that door and nothing you can do or say can stop me. You simply don't have the right to detain me." It's false imprisonment, which is both a tort and a crime.
Sure, there's the shopkeeper's privilege if he suspects that the person has actually committed shoplifting. But that's a really fucking limited privilege. You actually
have to have a good reason for the suspicion, and "he wouldn't consent to a search" just isn't a good reason - there is no presumption of guilt, and that would manufacture the right to search by means of a threat. On top of which, they don't even have the right to
search you in the first place, even if they suspect you've stolen something. Nor do they have the right to use unreasonable force. Hell, they don't even have the right to detain you once you leave the store's property or immediate vicinity (so yeah, in his car in the parking lot and physically keeping the door open is quite probably out of line.
Anyone who thinks otherwise ("hey, he's causing a scene, he MUST be guilty") simply doesn't understand the law.
Sure, this guy was a bit of a douche, and I don't think he's a "hero." But anyone who dismisses what he did without being the least bit on his side is fucking misguided. The store, and the manager were dead, fucking wrong. He's not fighting a great fight, but yeah, at least now far more people are aware that you don't HAVE to put up with that sort of thing, and to raise that level of awareness for hundreds of thousands of people nationwide, when balanced against one overzealous guy spending a night in jail, yes, it's a positive.
Fact is, things like this are ultimately a form of collective bargaining, a negotiation between the general public and the corporations we interact with. If companies keep doing it, and people keep accepting it, it becomes the standard. And then we reach a point where there IS a presumption of guilt against anyone who doesn't consent to these searches. I think most people would prefer that that didn't happen, and it's better that one douche actually makes a scene over it, than everyone else just submits and grumbles.
