Quote :

" As I understand it, they can only detain people suspected of theft. And they must have a good reason for suspecting a person. I doubt this would qualify. "

Context clues... i addressed that earlier in my post as to what they need to stop someone suspected of theft.

Quote :

"False dilemma. Good thing people of stronger mettle founded this country."

How is this a false dilemma? There is a balance between your rights and the rights of the store. The store has the right to exist for the purpose of sales. Theft has become a problem in all stores. Thus, stores have a right to curb theft using existing laws and guidelines that I've already posted. It's the right of the store to be free from theft just as much as it is the right of the person not to be harassed for going there. If it weren't for theft, we wouldn't have to have these rules in place.

[Edited on September 3, 2007 at 1:10 PM. Reason : and i appreciate the questioning of my "mettle."]

9/3/2007 1:09:11 PM

never bothered me to show a receipt except having to dig it out of a bag or something. 2 seconds and im out the door. i don't steal anyways so i've got nothing to worry about.

9/3/2007 1:37:36 PM

one time, the lady at the post office wanted me to show her my driver's license because my credit card wasn't signed

so i punched her in the face and kicked the customer behind me!

9/3/2007 1:58:57 PM

we need to get the aclu involved. So they can put an end to theft prevention in all stores. That will benefit us all. LOL. This douce, and im sure a future lawyer, will try to make it easier for people to steal. Then the people who actually PAY for the items will be paying more...which will only encourage more stealing.

I bet this man lives in his parents basement and has a blog.

9/3/2007 2:18:01 PM

Why don't they just have a separate exit for people who have gone through the registers?

9/3/2007 2:24:41 PM

why not just spend the extra 2 fucking seconds to show your receipt

9/3/2007 2:27:23 PM

^ people are too pampered, it's like we all think we should get so much more than we've ever earned

9/3/2007 2:29:55 PM

one problem w/ this thread is that each state has different laws concerning shoplifters

in NC for example, you can shoplift-larceny (meaning you stole and left the store) or you can shoplift-concealment of merchandise (meaning you never even left the store, just hid the items w/ intent to commit larceny)

This guy created the problem, and created 'reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity - look at the fact set that he himself posted: refused to show receipt, car just outside the door, driver in it, engine running. He did everything he could to appear to be a shoplifter, while not actually stealing anything

The constitution doesn't really apply to the private company (circuit city) so they have a different standard than what it would take for a police officer to intervene in the same scenario. However, if you look at the facts as this idiot posted them - he gave them reasonable suspicion to conduct a detention stop to investigate further (and call police if necessary). I'd even argue that he met the probable cause standard. People seem to think that PC is the same standard of proof needed for a conviction in court .... very wrong. PC = 51% a crime occured, 49% it didn't. Criminal conviction= beyond a reasonable doubt (not all doubt, only a reasonable one)

As to the arrest, no way i'm taking this idiots word that all he did was refuse to provide his DL when asked once or twice. It is reasonable to believe that an adult in todays world has photo ID, and if a PO has reason to believe a suspect is hiding his true identity or providing an alias then its justifiable to physically arrest the suspect rather than arrest by citation (ticket and release). The PO obviously felt there was PC that a crime had occurred (remember - 51% rule) and that he wasn't getting cooperation or the suspects real name.

In short, I hope this idiot gets what he deserves - he alone created this scenario. As has been posted, stores do these checks as a means to avoid passing losses on to paying customers. His actions hurt innocent people, not criminals.

"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent" Adam Smith, 1758

9/3/2007 2:38:22 PM

^ my thoughts almost exactly

9/3/2007 3:36:41 PM

as bad as customer service is nowadays I'm becoming less and less accomadating to stuff like this

9/3/2007 4:07:16 PM

i understand the nature of protecting customers, but isn't this a bit like saying that you have probable cause to arrest someone if they refuse to let you search their vehicle? i mean, just because everyone else lets you do it doesn't mean that you are automatically suspicious by refusing. i think the only reason we don't have the same stance here is because it hasn't been adjudicated in the supreme court 50 times.

9/3/2007 4:43:25 PM

My problem is, as was pointed out above, this guy was doing everything he could to make himself suspicious. Remember that no CC employee called the cops. HE called the cops and then refused to cooperate with the officer who had arrived to help him.

9/3/2007 5:00:35 PM

we are assuming he actually didnt steal anything, correct?

9/3/2007 5:01:13 PM

Quote :

"we are assuming he actually didnt steal anything, correct?"

Both the officer and the manager eventually inspected the receipt and the contents of the bag, so yes, we are assuming that.

Quote :

"This guy created the problem, and created 'reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity - look at the fact set that he himself posted: refused to show receipt, car just outside the door, driver in it, engine running."

Bullshit. Everything about that situation is quite common except the refusal to show the receipt, which is no more giving probable cause than refusing to voluntarily allow a search of your car or home is.

9/3/2007 5:17:54 PM

Exactly. Refusing a search of your bag is no more indicative of probable cause than refusing a search of your car.

9/3/2007 7:13:12 PM

so what do you guys think about breathalizer tests ?

9/3/2007 7:40:58 PM

I don't support them without probable cause. If a person is driving within the speed limit, not swerving, i.e. not showing the signs of intoxication, I see no reason they should be allowed.

I also do not support the use of a brethalyzer on patrons exiting a Circuit City.

p.s. I just bought some stuff today from Circuit City. They didn't check my receipt.

9/3/2007 8:04:25 PM

Quote :

"This guy created the problem, and created 'reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity - look at the fact set that he himself posted: refused to show receipt, car just outside the door, driver in it, engine running." Bullshit. Everything about that situation is quite common except the refusal to show the receipt"

Quite common amongst Shoplifters. Of the ones I have busted, every single one of them have a car just outside the door, door open, engine running, and several with a driver waiting...

Regular people park in the parking lot and, even if they have someone driving with them, kill the engine unless it's really hot outside and the person sits in the AC.

9/3/2007 8:06:46 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit. Everything about that situation is quite common except the refusal to show the receipt, which is no more giving probable cause than refusing to voluntarily allow a search of your car or home is"

no it isn't

look at the totality of the circumstances, not individual actions


having the car waiting outside, and showing your receipt as you leave... no problem

this set of circumstances is 100% suspicious and cause for further investigation. He wanted this to happen and got his wish, now he wants to waste the ACLU's time, the courts time...his own time - and the time of his family. I'm all for taking a stand to keep things in perspective, but take a stand on something that actually makes sense...

9/3/2007 8:53:51 PM

Quote :

"Then the people who actually PAY for the items"

you are implying he stole which he didn't. He is as much a paying customer as you are...

9/3/2007 9:42:43 PM

^^ The thing is, the store employees WOULD NOT accuse him of stealing. It looks like the site has received too much traffic and has been taken down temporarily, but when the store manager was forcing himself into the car door, the customer says he gave him three options.

1. Accuse me of stealing, call the cops, and I'll wait for them.
2. Remove yourself from my car so I can leave.
or 3. I will call the cops because you are holding me here against my will.

The manager refused to call the cops and wouldn't budge from inside the car door.

9/3/2007 9:50:17 PM

It's extremely odd for the store staff to block the guy at his car and prevent him for leaving, merely for not showing his receipt. I can pretty much guarantee this is not standard procedure, and is illegal in NC. So either the store staff thought he really was stealing something, or they are complete morons for confronting him at his car.

And he was technically in the right in the way he dealt with the cop, but standing up for your rights is always a crap-shoot with cops where you can get a little bit burned, and he did. But the cop screwed up worse than the store, I think. You might expect retail employees not to be completely knowledgeable about the law, but you'd think a cop would know better. On the other hand, a cop is called to a store, and the store people say a guy who's refusing to have his shopping bag searched or show ID is stealing stuff (probably what they said or implied), he'd almost be negligent to just let the guy go.

I'm sure though there's another side to this story that we'll never hear.

9/3/2007 10:00:52 PM

^^ You could argue that when he stopped and got out of the car, instead of continuing on, to confront the manager and continue the argument that he had at that point consented to staying until the situation was resolved. It's a weak argument to be sure, but from his own admission he had the chance to leave and chose to stay.

9/3/2007 10:17:23 PM

This guy is an asshole. The link doesnt work, but is this guy in his thirties overweight and living at home?

9/3/2007 10:20:00 PM

^ He is an asshole, but that doesn't make him inherently wrong.

You're an asshole too, you know

9/3/2007 10:35:23 PM

Quote :

"This guy is an asshole. The link doesnt work, but is this guy in his thirties overweight and living at home?"

Off topic, but I live at home as well... Most people "live at home"

9/4/2007 6:58:00 AM

Rent-a-cops and store security always think they are much more important than they are and love to push their 'power' around a little. They don't always realize their 'authority' doesn't extend beyond those of a normal citizen and think they can push around people more than is legal.

Given the guy was probably a douche, but I'm sure these wannabe cops weren't helping the situation at all.

9/4/2007 7:21:10 AM

You're in a private establishment, handling someone else's product. The store has a right to do their best to prevent shoplifting without violating your rights (WHICH RECEIPT CHECKING DEFINITELY DOES NOT DO).

This guy's a dick. I mean, hell... why even have registers? Let's just have a box at the door, and everyone can drop their money in as they leave? Heaven forbid we violate his 28th amendment right to not be bothered in any way by the unwashed retail masses.

9/4/2007 7:50:56 AM

Quote :

"1. Accuse me of stealing, call the cops, and I'll wait for them. 2. Remove yourself from my car so I can leave. or 3. I will call the cops because you are holding me here against my will. The manager refused to call the cops and wouldn't budge from inside the car door."

and some of you think the customer was the douche?

if anything, they were both douches, but the customer was right

and besides, being a douche, in and of itself, is a civil liberty.

if my rights were being trampled, I wouldn't be Mr. Fucking Manners.


some of you seem to be so dense,

that the simplicity of merely showing the receipt for a few seconds is all you see.

you care more about what's popular or comfortable than what's right


But hey,

HOW IMPORTANT CAN A CIVIL LIBERTY BE
IF IT ONLY TAKES A FEW SECONDS OF NOT DEFENDING IT TO MAKE LIFE EASIER AND PRICES LOWER?
CONVENIENT SHOPPING AND LOW PRICES ARE WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE!!







[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 7:59 AM. Reason : .]

9/4/2007 7:55:28 AM

Please tell me how "not showing your receipt" is a civil liberty.

It's the only proof you can provide that you're not stealing a private establishment's property. Private businesses and individuals don't have the right to protect their property, but you have a right to not show them the receipt they gave you as proof of your purchase? WHY EVEN HAVE RECEIPTS IF ITS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION TO ASK TO SEE THEM?

For crying out loud. Talk about dense. Believe it or not, but doing whatever the hell you want on private property is not a civil liberty.

Please cite the Constitution before you make any more claims that receipt-showing has anything to do with your civil liberties.

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 8:04 AM. Reason : .]

9/4/2007 8:02:24 AM

Show me how private persons can require me to display personal property without any cause?


I cannot demand that you show me anything on your person legally, and restraining you to require to to do so would make me a criminal.

Private businesses do not have more rights than a private citizen, I'd argue they have less. Cases that involve civil rights questions should ALWAYS default to the rights of the citizen, not the corporation/government.

9/4/2007 8:08:12 AM

Quote :

"Show me how private persons can require me to display personal property without any cause?"

The fact that you're walking out of my house/business, carrying my stuff, isn't cause to ask to see the proof of sale?

And is a receipt/proof of sale even private property?

9/4/2007 8:16:17 AM

Wrong, once I give a company money for any goods, unless directly specified that good is now mine. You really can't argue that it only becomes yours after you walk out the door. If they want to prevent shoplifting then they need to put more sensors on things, not bother me when I'm wanting to leave and do other shit.

9/4/2007 8:23:18 AM

Wait, you mean the sensors that would alert LP as you're walking out the door, wanting to do other shit?

Do you even think about this stuff?

And did you intentionally back away from the civil rights argument in favor of the convenience argument?




[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 8:30 AM. Reason : .]

9/4/2007 8:26:52 AM

Yes, as you're walking out the door, aka actually stealing something. Then you have committed a crime and can be arrested for it.

9/4/2007 8:27:34 AM

Quote :

"WHY EVEN HAVE RECEIPTS IF ITS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION TO ASK DEMAND TO SEE THEM AND USE FORCE WHEN REFUSED"

9/4/2007 8:32:21 AM

^^You do realize that less than half the stuff in the store is tagged, right?

I mean, do you really want to pay for electronic tagging on every item you buy, or do you just want to flash your receipt at the door? (and you've yet to explain why asking to see proof of purchase is unconstitutional)


This is really simple once you get by the knee jerk "OMG MY RIGHTS" and think rationally.


^ I'm not defending chasing down the guy. The LP guys who did this are definitely looking for new jobs now, as they should be.

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 8:35 AM. Reason : .]

9/4/2007 8:34:22 AM

you see folks?

he cares more about his low prices than your civil liberties

what a great guy!

9/4/2007 8:36:56 AM

It's not 'unconstitutional' it's just not legal. You do not give up your legal rights as a citizen when you walk into a privately owned business, they cannot force you to show anything on your being at their request.


If they post something on the door in plain sight before you walk in (shirts, shoes required, no concealed firearms, you will be videotaped, you must present your receipt upon leaving) then you have agreed to these terms upon entering and must abide by them.

If they don't post anything like this then they are conducting an illegal search on you which is tantamount to me walking up to you on the street and asking you for receipts for various things on your person.

What would they do if you paid for something then went directly to the bathroom, took a shit, threw away the receipt and then left? Would they take the items away from you? Hell no, that's illegal, you have paid for it and them taking it from you is theft.

9/4/2007 8:39:49 AM

Jesus, dude. How is asking to see a proof of sale as you're walking out the store with merchandise against your civil liberties?

You're more than welcome to not show your receipt. But you'll also be barred from the store's property. It's simple, once you know what the hell you're talking about, really.

Quote :

"What would they do if you paid for something then went directly to the bathroom, took a shit, threw away the receipt and then left? Would they take the items away from you? Hell no, that's illegal, you have paid for it and them taking it from you is theft."

You'd be directed to customer service, where they could print you out a new one in less than 3 minutes. As a former LP guy, you're not leaving my store with that plasma screen unless you show me proof of sale, period. You may leave. The plasma may not. (also, they wouldn't let you enter the bathroom with merchandise in the first place, so don't worry about that scenario)

Is protecting yourself from theft really that complicated?



PLUS, ya'll are assuming that the receipt checkers are there only to prevent customers from stealing. It's a very common occurrence for cashiers to let their friends by without paying for all their merchandise.

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 8:52 AM. Reason : .]

9/4/2007 8:39:50 AM

Quote :

"you're not leaving my store with that plasma screen unless you show me proof of sale, period. You may leave. The plasma may not."

In this case you become a criminal (unless these stipulations are posted upon entry of the store) because you have essentially stolen from a customer. Depending on the price of the goods you may have committed a felony.

Quote :

"Is protecting yourself from theft really that complicated?"

It's funny that you word it like that because what you just advocated was stealing from a customer. Again, individual rights should always trump institutional rights.

Quote :

"But you'll also be barred from the store's property."

That's fine, but I doubt most stores would bar a paying customer from entering. I think if customers pushed this enough the practice would be dropped, they could start tagging merchandise and offset the costs by firing a few of the rent-a-cops.

Quote :

"It's simple, once you know what they hell you're talking about, really."

Don't try to lower the level of this discussion by saying I'm ignorant for having a completely legitimate (and legally substantiated) view.

9/4/2007 8:50:42 AM

Quote :

"In this case you become a criminal (unless these stipulations are posted upon entry of the store) because you have essentially stolen from a customer. Depending on the price of the goods you may have committed a felony."

Wrong. If you can't produce a bill of sale, you don't own it.

Take that shit to court, actually. Please. Explain how you own it, without actually being able to prove that you do.

Quote :

"That's fine, but I doubt most stores would bar a paying customer from entering."

Best Buy would (and did) while I was working there. Plus, of the people who refuse to show receipts, how many of them do you think are paying customers?

Quote :

"I think if customers pushed this enough the practice would be dropped"

The thing is, 99.9% of consumers aren't college libertarians.

Quote :

"they could start tagging merchandise and offset the costs by firing a few of the rent-a-cops."

You clearly have no idea how expensive tagging is and how (relatively) cheap LP staff is

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 9:00 AM. Reason : .]

9/4/2007 8:59:13 AM

Quote :

"If they post something on the door in plain sight before you walk in (shirts, shoes required, no concealed firearms, you will be videotaped, you must present your receipt upon leaving) then you have agreed to these terms upon entering and must abide by them."

That's another point. The difference between this being a legal issue or not could be as simple as a sign posted that says "We reserve the right to inspect receipts of customers before they leave the store."

9/4/2007 8:59:33 AM

^ I completely forgot about that.

My LP stand had that plaque, actually.

9/4/2007 9:01:26 AM

Quote :

" Wrong. If you can't produce a bill of sale, you don't own it. Take that shit to court, actually. Please. Explain how you own it, without actually being able to prove that you do."

Ok, wait until my credit card is charged, then subpoena the security tapes showing me going through the line and paying for it. I mean, that is if the store actually wanted to take it to court.

Quote :

"The thing is, 99.9% of consumers aren't college libertarians."

Cool, I'm not a libertarian so I guess I'd be in that .1%

Quote :

" My LP stand had that plaque, actually."

A stand inside the store has little to no legal standing.

9/4/2007 9:04:58 AM

Quote :

"Off topic, but I live at home as well... Most people "live at home" "

If you are in your thirties and living with your parents...there is a problem.


I love the arguement that the store should know who is and who isnt stealing. Lets apply that same logic to the airports. Why are you being inconvienced by searches and inspections when after all YOU dont plan on hijacking the plane. Should they stop those too? I mean, for your civil liberties and all...

Its there to discourage on hopefully catch shoplifters. If you dont like stores that do that, shop elsewhere or shut the fuck up. Its how they keep costs down. He acted suspicious and probably so intentionally so he could set up a lawsuit, or get publicity. Nothing more or less.

9/4/2007 9:44:48 AM

this is why stores have policies on how they're supposed to handle this sort of thing, and this store obviously didn't follow that policy.

9/4/2007 9:53:52 AM

Quote :

"Ok, wait until my credit card is charged, then subpoena the security tapes showing me going through the line and paying for it. I mean, that is if the store actually wanted to take it to court."

So the theft prevention thug at the door has access to the security tapes and your credit card statement in the instant you are leaving the door? Sounds like a receipt check is the way to go.

Quote :

"He acted suspicious and probably so intentionally so he could set up a lawsuit, or get publicity. Nothing more or less."

Pretty much.

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 9:59 AM. Reason : -]

9/4/2007 9:57:46 AM

^both you and I dont know what thier policy is and whether or not it was followed. But asking to see a receipt for someone asking suspicious isnt unreasonable. To further look into the matter when they also refuse to produce the receipt is justified. IMO

9/4/2007 9:58:34 AM

Quote :

"I love the arguement that the store should know who is and who isnt stealing. Lets apply that same logic to the airports. Why are you being inconvienced by searches and inspections when after all YOU dont plan on hijacking the plane. Should they stop those too? I mean, for your civil liberties and all... "

the problem w/ comparing CC to an Airport is this - Airports are gov't controlled, therefore actually have to be concerned about constitutional rights

CC is a private company, therefore can get away w/ a lot more and worry a lot less about constitutional "rights"

http://www.security-expert.org/shoplifting.htm

Quote :

"Each year shoplifting incidents are estimated to cost retail merchants in the United States well over $12 billion in losses. Since most retail stores operate on very narrow profit margins, those shoplifting losses can mean the difference between profit, loss and even bankruptcy. "

$12 billion... yeah, I think I'd try to limit losses too

Quote :

"In almost all jurisdictions in the United States, merchants are legally empowered to detain shoplifting suspects for investigation and possible arrest and prosecution in the criminal justice system. This power is called "merchant’s privilege." "

The author of the website goes on to explain the 'best practices' to use when the Loss Prevention officers are deciding whether or not to detain someone. In the example that started this thread, I don't know that states rules on shoplifting. In NC, the thief doesn't actually have to leave the store for a shoplifting offense to have occurred.

And as someone above pointed out, the receipt check verifies if the cashier has done their job - incidentally if the cashier did "help out a friend" then they just committed a felony (regardless of the value of the item(s)"

basically - this isn't a case of "loss of rights/liberties" this is a case of "fishing for a lawsuit w/ a big company that will probably settle b/c the lawyers are the only ones that win in a long, extended lawsuit - regardless of what is right and what is wrong"

guys a jackass, and he probably has/will take down his stupid post when he realizes it helps the prosecution not his "case"

[Edited on September 4, 2007 at 10:55 AM. Reason : x.d,d]

9/4/2007 10:44:37 AM