More consumer fun at Best Buy!

[Roland]

Article

Video

The gist:
Woman is checking out at the Best Buy. During checkout, she gets a distressing call on her cellphone, supposedly regarding an emergency situation involving her child. She goes to leave before finishing the checkout when the credit card she was using comes back as stolen. She's approached by an officer, enraged discussion ensues, and she gets tased with 50k volts and promptly arrested. As it turns out, the card WAS in fact hers, and all charges have been dropped.

Thought about posting this in the "Hero or Jerk" thread about that Circuit City incident, but didn't feel like performing thread necromancy.

All I have to say is: this is why I will never live in Florida, and why I don't shop at Best Buy. Personally, I think the cop was WAY out of line, but I suppose better a taser than a real gun.:PMaybe she should have maced her instead. Oooh! Oooh! I know! Hit her with the nightstick! That always works, too.

Seriously, never living in the south, ESPECIALLY not Florida.:P

[DeeBye]

When the officer tried to talk with Beeland she began yelling and resisting her questions. The officer then threatened to arrest her if she didn't calm down, but Beeland kept arguing.

What is a cop supposed to do in this situation? Other than a taser in the gut, she probably gets physically slammed to the ground and handcuffed. Cops really don't like it when you flail your arms around and ignore their orders. It sucks that she was tasered.

Also, why the heck did her credit card go from STOLEN to OOPS SORRY IT'S OKAY? It's either flagged as stolen or it's not.

I'm gonna be a rebel in this discussion and say that I blame the entire credit card industry for this outrageous miscarriage of justice and/or attempted commerce.

[Roland]

I'd rather be tackled than tazered. At least then I have a chance to fight back.;)'Course, then they get to book me on resisting arrest AND assaulting an officer.:D

Seriously, nothing she did in my mind warrants getting tazered. She didn't assault the cop, she didn't make any hostile moves, all she did was back away and stay out of reach, nothing more. There's NO reason the cop couldn't have held her ground, instead of constantly pushing towards her. Have someone block the entrance and keep her talking. The whole situation could have been resolved diplomatically. Seriously, cops need a lesson in negotiations if their first instinct is to tazer anyone who doesn't drop to the ground in the fetal position at the mention of their authority.:P

As for the credit card, DeeBye machines, just like people, are not infallible. They make mistakes. I've seen cards get declined one minute only to be accepted the next, without any change in procedure. Mistakes happen. It's not unheard of. Clearly you've never worked retail before.;)I have, for more than a few years, and as both a consumer and a worker my sympathies go with the woman.

I hope that cop at least seriously reconsiders her actions, regardless of whether any disciplinary action is filed. It's one thing if you're taking down someone who's trying to beat you off. It's another to take down a distraught mother who's worrying about her child and is only SUSPECTED of possessing a stolen credit card. Last I checked, theft wasn't tazer-worthy. Assault is. WORLD of difference. There's a reason cops can't shoot civilians without life-threatening circumstances. Those same principles should be applied to the use of tazers, adjusted accordingly.

[kandrathe]

I'd rather be tackled than tazered. At least then I have a chance to fight back.

The Tazer really isn't the evil it's made out to be. It induces massive involuntary muscle contraction which renders the target helpless, but undamaged. There are isolated cases where the target of tazering has suffered some complications, but presumably so would targets riddled with bullets, or bludgeoned with nightsticks.

A reasonable person who gets distressing news by phone, would have conducted themselves in a more reasonable manner. Unfortunately, she got what she deserved. The clerk, and the security person only knew that a woman with a presumed stolen credit card was trying to flee the store with a shockingly convenient excuse.

[Rhydderch Hael]

The Tazer really isn't the evil it's made out to be. It induces massive involuntary muscle contraction which renders the target helpless, but undamaged. There are isolated cases where the target of tazering has suffered some complications, but presumably so would targets riddled with bullets, or bludgeoned with nightsticks. ...

The lingering, damaging effects of a gun or nightstick is what compels an officer to weigh the effect of force into their decision loop during a confrontation. The fact that such tools will harm or kill gives weight to whatever criteria the officer is trained or directed to follow to justify the use of force.

The taser, as you describe them, frees the officer from such consequences and may give them the inclination to secure the situation through the quickest and convenient means: to immediately escalate and then terminate the confrontation through force, without consideration of long-term consequences because "there are none".

Which really sucks in those situations where talking down the perp may have worked instead. Now, that option may not always work, but the trend towards non-lethal weaponry is giving the officer the means to conveniently forego that option entirely.

[LochnarITB]

There are isolated cases where the target of tazering has suffered some complications,

I would call death a bit of a complication! I'm surprised you posted this when a local man died, just last month, after being tased. Although I have not yet heard of an underlying cause in that case, in fact I read there was no heart condition there, but many of the deaths have been passed off to heart disease, drug use, etc. The problem is that such conditions are rarely visible. "Stop! Do you have a heart condition? I am going to tase you now and I don't want to do a bunch of paperwork if you die." This was a ridiculous use of the taser. She wasn't beating down a swarm of police officers, she was backing away from one. Force of any kind was not called for.

[wundergore]

I'd rather be tackled than tazered. At least then I have a chance to fight back.;)'Course, then they get to book me on resisting arrest AND assaulting an officer.:D

Seriously, nothing she did in my mind warrants getting tazered. She didn't assault the cop, she didn't make any hostile moves, all she did was back away and stay out of reach, nothing more. There's NO reason the cop couldn't have held her ground, instead of constantly pushing towards her. Have someone block the entrance and keep her talking. The whole situation could have been resolved diplomatically. Seriously, cops need a lesson in negotiations if their first instinct is to tazer anyone who doesn't drop to the ground in the fetal position at the mention of their authority.:P


I hope that cop at least seriously reconsiders her actions, regardless of whether any disciplinary action is filed. It's one thing if you're taking down someone who's trying to beat you off. It's another to take down a distraught mother who's worrying about her child and is only SUSPECTED of possessing a stolen credit card. Last I checked, theft wasn't tazer-worthy. Assault is. WORLD of difference. There's a reason cops can't shoot civilians without life-threatening circumstances. Those same principles should be applied to the use of tazers, adjusted accordingly.

Playing devil's advocate: she was resisting arrest. Period. At the point the LEO is attempting to take her into custody and she resists he is allowed to use force (up to and including deadly force if warranted) to take her into custody. Her excuse really doesn't factor into the equation. You can't resist arrest just because you have a personal problem to take care of. Plus how is the LEO supposed to know if the "distraught mother" is legit or not? What if she really had a stolen credit card and was using a fake phone call to get out of the situation where she got called on it?

What do you really expect the LEO to do in that situation? For the LEO it's really a no win situation-if he tases her he gets beat down for that; if he jumps on her and cuffs her he gets beat down for that; if he pepper sprays her he gets beat down for that as well. The taser was probably the least damaging option he had to subdue her and take her into custody.

LEOs have the crappiest job on the planet and they get little to no thanks for it. And it's not helped by people who are not on the scene second guessing what SHOULD have happened after the fact. Do LEOs make mistakes? Absolutely. However, when you have to make decissions without knowing all the facts in advance, on a moments notice I can't really blame them. It's easy to judge after the fact.....

W<

[Taem]

Well, I think this takes the cake for Bestbuy issues!

A LOST LAPTOP, A $54 MILLION LAWSUIT
Posted: Tuesday, February 12 at 05:00 am CT by Bob Sullivan

How much compensation does a consumer deserve for the loss of a laptop computer loaded with personal information? Raelyn Campbell figures it’s $54 million -- if you throw in a little extra for lost time and frustration.

Six months after bringing a damaged laptop computer into a Best Buy electronics store for repairs, and three months after the firm admitted losing it, Campbell filed the whopper of a lawsuit recently in Washington, D.C., Superior Court.

Best Buy has told Campbell that her demands are unreasonable, and has tried to settle for far less. But Campbell said she didn’t start out making astronomical demands. Months of stalling and brush-offs by the company led her to the drastic measures, she said.

Best Buy spokeswoman Nissa French said the company couldn’t comment on Campbell’s story, citing the ongoing litigation. A lawyer for Best Buy did not return phone calls or e-mails.

When Campbell bought her new laptop in 2006 at a Best Buy store near her D.C. home, she said a clerk talked her into paying $300 for an extended warranty. She thought that was a fortunate choice when the computer's on/off switch broke about a year later.

In May, she brought the computer back to the store and was told repairs would take two to six weeks. That wasn't terribly convenient for Campbell, who works for a nonprofit Asia research firm and travels frequently overseas.

But six weeks turned out to be a wildly optimistic estimate.

The run-around
By late August, when she returned from a trip to Asia, she still had heard nothing from the company and started to get anxious. Her Aug. 24 complaint letter to the firm was filled with exasperation.

“On July 11, I contacted the (store’s) helpline and was instructed by ‘Agent David Goodfellow’ that it would be ‘ready within days,’” she wrote to the firm in a letter dated Aug. 24. “I called the service line again on July 19, and was told by a female agent that the computer appeared to be at the ‘Louisville Services Center since July 4.’ On July 25, I called again and spoke to Brenda, who transferred me to Daniel. Daniel confirmed that a ‘part had just been ordered. It should leave Louisville soon.’ …When I heard nothing further, I called yet again on Aug. 7 and spoke with Ashley. When she could not confirm any additional information, I asked to speak to a manager. I was told the manager, ‘Marsha,’ was in a meeting. I asked her to call ASAP. My call was not returned, so I called again on Aug. 9. I explained the whole situation yet again to ‘Cicero,’ who indicated that there seemed to be a problem.”

The problem was severe: “It never appears to have left the store,” she recounted Cicero as telling her. A few days later, he called back and admitted that the computer had been lost. The way she sees it, the other company clerks had been lying to her all along.

Cicero was considerate, Campbell said, and told her she would be compensated. But two weeks passed, and she hadn’t heard anything from the company.
Raelyn Campbell


After several more weeks of fruitless phone calls, she received an offer she calls insulting: $900 for her trouble -- in the form of a store gift card. Her blood boiled. She had paid more than $1,100 for the computer and the warranty. And she’d also lost thousands dollars worth of music and thousands of irreplaceable photos.

"It wouldn't even cover the cost of replacing the computer, let alone the software, or my time,” she said of the gift card offer. “And why would I want to go spend money at their store again after the way I was treated?"

Campbell rejected the offer, instead demanding $2,100 in cash. She said her request went unanswered. In October, she urged family and friends to write to the store saying they wouldn't shop there until the matter was resolved. To her surprise, the store's general manager, Robert Delissio, replied to two of them.

"For every customer that has had an unpleasant experience I can show you hundreds who have had a great experience. I have been in retail for a long time and the one conclusion I have come to is that not every customer can be satisfied," he wrote in an e-mail supplied by Campbell. "Does my store have opportunities? Absolutely! What I can say is that we strive to deliver the experience that every customer deserves to receive."

Delissio didn’t respond to requests from msnbc.com to discuss the situation; Best Buy wouldn't comment on the authenticity of the note.

Her frustration mounting, Campbell contacted the Washington, D.C., attorney general's office, which in turn contacted the store. In November, the store increased its compensation offer, this time offering a $1,100 refund to her credit card and a $500 gift card.

A bigger problem: ID theft
At the same time, she visited a legal aid office and was asked by a lawyer there whether she had any personal information on the computer?

"Of course I did," she replied. "My tax returns were on there."

Campbell was informed that she had a bigger problem than a lost computer – the potential for identity theft. She also learned that Best Buy was in violation of the district's security breach notification law, which requires companies that have lost a consumer's data to tell them. To date, she has not received that notification.

Campbell immediately enrolled in a $10-a-month identity theft monitoring service.

She also had reached the limit of her patience. In November, she filed her $54 million lawsuit against Best Buy -- by herself, without legal representation.

The amount intentionally echoes another lawsuit that made headlines last year -- a case involving a D.C. judge who sued a dry cleaner for $54 million over a lost pair of pants. That case was eventually dismissed.
Campbell freely admits she picked the same amount in an effort to attract media attention.

The lawsuit apparently got company's attention, too. On Dec. 20, it offered $2,500 -- in addition to the refund and the gift card -- if she would withdraw her lawsuit and sign a confidentiality agreement.

But that's not enough, Campbell said, because she has yet to hear any explanation for the lost computer.

"It shouldn't take a $54 million lawsuit to motivate Best Buy to address these issues," she said. Her initial offer to settle for $2,100 has been withdrawn because her expenses have risen, including time spent filing a police report and consulting with lawyers about her case, she said. Concerns about identity theft also add to her potential damages, she said.

Wants an explanation
While Campbell has no expectation she will win a multimillion-dollar judgment, she feels she is entitled to damages related to store negligence and an "explanation as to how my computer could have been stolen from a secure area" of the store.

She also wants a promise from the company that it will train employees on privacy issues and on procedures for preventing loss or theft of returned items.

“I can't help but wonder how many other people have had their computer stolen (or) lost by Best Buy and then been bullied into accepting lowball compensation offers for replacement expenses and no compensation for identity theft protection expenses,” she said.

I think I would sue too, but I'm not so sure about $54 million! Was she justified? Hell yes!

[Hammerskjold]

>The Tazer really isn't the evil it's made out to be. It induces massive involuntary muscle contraction which renders the target helpless, but undamaged. There are isolated cases where the target of tazering has suffered some complications, but presumably so would targets riddled with bullets, or bludgeoned with nightsticks.

Personally, I think the focus should be on officers training and reaction. Having said that however, a taser or taser like device IMO, can not be simply dismissed as harmless.

I've also seen the footage where volunteers try out being tased, and survive with no permanent ill effects afterwards. But here's the important thing, they volunteered. They know they will get tased. It's also in a more controlled environment.

To me it can be a big difference between someone who knows a tasing is imminent, compared to someone who is severely under stress, may or may not have other health factors, and generally not expecting a tasering. So out in the field, 'isolated' cases is probably more the norm. In general the public probably do not expect a tazing is imminent.

To be clear, I am not saying tasers are 'eeevyil' and should be taken away forever, which makes the world safe and pretty flowers should replace all those icky evil weapons. That is of course unrealistic on so many levels. I am saying, the human body is a remarkably complex piece of work. It can be both amazingly tough and fragile. To say that a taser leaves someone undamaged, is not really accurate.

There can be a world of difference between a controlled lab conditions tasing, and one done under field condition.



(As for Best Buy, I find most of them are only slightly better than Circuit City. But that's not saying much.)

[Munkay]

Speaking of Best Buy, Women Files $54 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Best Buy for Losing Her Laptop.

We've definitely heard some horror stories about Best Buy, but it looks like a DC woman named Raelyn Campbell has had enough: she's opening up a big can of America Sauce on the retailer in the form of a $54m lawsuit after it lost her laptop during warranty service.

Campbell says she bought a laptop and $300 extended warranty from Best Buy in 2006, and took the machine in for service when the power switch broke last May. Told repairs would take two to six weeks, she set off on a business trip, only to find that her laptop had gone missing when she returned in August. Fast forward through several more weeks of run-around and delays, and the best the Buy would offer for losing a $1,100 machine with all her data on it was a $900 gift card.

After being informed of the potential for identity theft, Campbell filed the multimillion-dollar suit, which prompted Best Buy to up its offer to a whopping $2,100 plus a $500 gift card. Campbell says she's not dropping the case until she finds out what happened to her machine -- and she wants ol' Blue to train its employees on privacy issues and revamp its warranty policy. Honestly? We'd say she has a better chance of getting the $54 million.

This whole exchange is rather comical. First off, whose the bright bulb to offer her a 900$ gift card for a item worth 1100$ which is still under the store's extended warranty?

Not dropping the case to teach Best Buy a lesson about privacy? Call me a cynic, but you can show as many informational videos, have special in store meetings, and draft as many internal memos as you want, but it's not going to change anything about accountability in a company that large.

I don't even need to touch the 54 million dollar question.

And I may not win any friends by saying this, but she deserves some of the blame for not taking out her HD before bringing it in for service. I've never had to deal with a retail store, but anytime I've sent in a laptop for service there's never been a problem with keeping the HD at home (moreover, IBM was kind enough to suggest it, specifically for the liability/data loss prevention issue).

Cheers,

Munk

PS. Wasn't the 8 Figure Pants judge from the DC area too? Must be something in the water...:P

EDIT: Turns out there's more to the story, and surprise surprise I was wrong. You can read the other article over at Arstechnica. Not only does she openly admit the 54million is to attract media attention and she in fact only wants the value of the laptop + expenses, it even mentions how Best Buy is in hot water over not explaining the possible data-loss.

If you need me, I'll be over here trying to pull my foot out of my mouth.

[Mithrandir]

Tasers not lethal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqdUhotL6Fw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka..._Taser_incident

[kandrathe]

I would call death a bit of a complication! I'm surprised you posted this when a local man died, just last month, after being tased. Although I have not yet heard of an underlying cause in that case, in fact I read there was no heart condition there, but many of the deaths have been passed off to heart disease, drug use, etc. The problem is that such conditions are rarely visible. "Stop! Do you have a heart condition? I am going to tase you now and I don't want to do a bunch of paperwork if you die." This was a ridiculous use of the taser. She wasn't beating down a swarm of police officers, she was backing away from one. Force of any kind was not called for.

Unless someone is complying with their orders, they are unpredictable and their behavior would be considered potentially life threatening. The officer did not know what weapons the woman may have had at her disposal, and screaming and flailing around or backing away would have given her ample cover to pull a weapon, dispatch the officer, and flee. This is why police are trained to use force at some point to gain compliance with their directives, not because they as sadistic bastards.

[kandrathe]

Tasers not lethal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqdUhotL6Fw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka..._Taser_incident

I believe I qualified my comment noting that there are some incidents where due to circumstances death may result (heart, freak accident, etc). But, when using a gun to subdue a suspect, the suspect rarely survives. That was my point. The tazer provides an alternative to lethal force.

[Artega]

I would call death a bit of a complication! I'm surprised you posted this when a local man died, just last month, after being tased. Although I have not yet heard of an underlying cause in that case, in fact I read there was no heart condition there, but many of the deaths have been passed off to heart disease, drug use, etc. The problem is that such conditions are rarely visible. "Stop! Do you have a heart condition? I am going to tase you now and I don't want to do a bunch of paperwork if you die." This was a ridiculous use of the taser. She wasn't beating down a swarm of police officers, she was backing away from one. Force of any kind was not called for.

If she had kept her cool and calmly explained to the officer the situation, and that the credit card was hers, then she wouldn't have been shocked. Tasers offer an excellent solution to making a perp listen without actually harming the perp. I don't see anything wrong here - if there is something wrong here, it's with the credit card companies and not the cop.

[Artega]

Tasers not lethal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqdUhotL6Fw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka..._Taser_incident

So you'd rather be shot with a 9mm bullet or whacked repeatedly with a nightstick if you're being unreasonable?

[Hammerskjold]

I believe I qualified my comment noting that there are some incidents where due to circumstances death may result (heart, freak accident, etc). But, when using a gun to subdue a suspect, the suspect rarely survives. That was my point. The tazer provides an alternative to lethal force.

That is imo, the proper way to use a less lethal weapon system. And that's certainly the way it's marketed. Unfortunately, looking at some of the real life incidents, that isn't how it's being used.

It seems in some cases, it's less a substitute for a gun, more a substitute for talking or verbal de-escalation. Why waste time yapping when you can be zapping?

Does that mean cops should never ever use a taser, of course not. There are definitely incidents where a taser use was fully justified.

The potential problems I see though, is an over-reliance on tasers and substituting it for verbal\communication techniques, and public focus on the taser as the problem. To me it's not the tool, it's the person (and the policy) and the context of it's use that merits the attention.

[Tal]

The potential problems I see though, is an over-reliance on tasers and substituting it for verbal\communication techniques, and public focus on the taser as the problem. To me it's not the tool, it's the person (and the policy) and the context of it's use that merits the attention.

Police officers undertake a tremendous amount of training on negotiation.

The problem here and in other similar cases is that citizens feel they don't need to listen to or obey an officer of the law. Fact is that the information the police officer had to go on was that the credit card the customer was using was stolen and that that customer was trying to leave the scene.

I realize she had received disturbing news about her child. I would be distraught as well if I had received a call about my daughter. But this isn't the movies. You can't just run from the police and rescue your child.

How long would it have taken to clear this up versus the time she spent in the emergency room and then jail for resisting arrest? What kind of outcry would there have been if the police officer had listened to her story, let her go and then it turned out that the credit card had been stolen?

[Hammerskjold]

>How long would it have taken to clear this up versus the time she spent in the emergency room and then jail for resisting arrest? What kind of outcry would there have been if the police officer had listened to her story, let her go and then it turned out that the credit card had been stolen?

Probably the same amount whenever there's a wrongful release. That is, it depends on the location and the act. (Or alleged act, as the news would say.) I'm by no means advocating that this woman does not have some responsibility in the matter. Or that the officer does not have some grounds for some suspicion. Doing that kind of job usually comes with the danger of seeing everyone as a potential suspect. An even greater danger is not having that sense at all, because without it can obviously cost lives.

Having said all that, I'm really hoping this isn't a case of 'efficiency' vs proper process and discipline. And to muddify it even more clearer, I'm actually -for- the development and field study of taser like systems, because properly used I see it as a valuable tool.

What I'd rather not see, is the misuse of it in the name of efficiency and safety. That to me, usually leads to an increasingly long list of what is taser worthy. What's that Simpsons episode again, with Jasper the old man reciting what offenses are worthy of a paddlin'?

[Swiss Mercenary]

So you'd rather be shot with a 9mm bullet or whacked repeatedly with a nightstick if you're being unreasonable?

Yes, I would rather get shot with a 9mm.

Why?

Because It won't happen. Because cops wouldn't shoot people in every instance that they use tasers now.

People don't get shot over non-violent insubordination.

They do get beaten for it. And if there were as many beatings as there are taserings, the magic word would be "Police Brutality."

Here's a third option, for you to consider: "Negotiation"

It's something that could have prevented the taser-induced death of an innocent man in Vancouver Airport. Why did he get tasered? Because he couldn't speak English, and didn't respond to English commands to move.

What I'd rather not see, is the misuse of it in the name of efficiency and safety.

This is exactly how officers want to use them, and exactly how they do use them. It's easier to taze, then try to resolve the situation non-violently, and it's safer to zap-zap-zap to bring someone down then restrain them otherwise.

The impression is that it is a non-lethal, harmless, weapon - it is hence used as a magic bullet to resolve all kinds of situations where it was unwarranted.

[Roland]

The lingering, damaging effects of a gun or nightstick is what compels an officer to weigh the effect of force into their decision loop during a confrontation. The fact that such tools will harm or kill gives weight to whatever criteria the officer is trained or directed to follow to justify the use of force.

The taser, as you describe them, frees the officer from such consequences and may give them the inclination to secure the situation through the quickest and convenient means: to immediately escalate and then terminate the confrontation through force, without consideration of long-term consequences because "there are none".

Which really sucks in those situations where talking down the perp may have worked instead. Now, that option may not always work, but the trend towards non-lethal weaponry is giving the officer the means to conveniently forego that option entirely.

RH hit it right on the head.