Rights Violation or a Complete Jerk?

[Nystul]

If they let him drive away, there is zero chance of recovering merchandise. A license plate will do no good because there will be no evidence of theft without the merchandise. If they really thought he was stealing something, he should have been restrained before he even got to the car.

[oldmandennis]

2) New policies in these stores that result in every customer being required to sign something stating that they are requred to show receipt and purchases upon exiting the store as a condition of purchase

Not necessary. By coming onto their private property, you are agreeing to their posted policies, which include reasonable searches of bags.

If they really thought he was stealing something, he should have been restrained before he even got to the car.

Humans just don't react that fast to unexpected situations. Plus you don't want 8$/hr college kid making a decision like that - I'm sure his instructions are to get the manager if anything happens.

[Munkay]

I don't really see a logical conclusion that ends in the removal of these searches.

Searches are here to stay. We're in the age of news stories like the man from Wal-Mart who put a 5$ sticker on a $5000 plasma TV and tried to self check out and leave the store. I remember cracking up about that a few months ago. If that isn't a good enough reason to continue, I don't know what is:P

Cheers,

Munk

[Munkay]

If they really thought he was stealing something, he should have been restrained before he even got to the car.

I agree in theory. But most major corporations tell their employees not to chase down people who are stealing. Instead, get a manager and let them deal with it. Corporations are very scared of being sued/looking bad in the media when an employee gets hurt chasing a criminal. In some cases, people have lost their jobs for reacting to a person stealing (a few weeks back this happened to an employee at home depot).

Cheers,

Munk

[Archon_Wing]

The guy is a complete douchebag. End of story.

You are not standing up to "The Man". This is private property. Nobody is forcing you to go into the store. It's a search of the bag, not a body search or something crazy like that. If I thought you stole something from my house, I can't stop you? Now certainly, if you were a guest and I pointed a gun at you that is unreasonable, but asking to see a recipt? What do you think the recipt is for?



He should be donating ME money for having to read that.

[Jester]

Not necessary. By coming onto their private property, you are agreeing to their posted policies, which include reasonable searches of bags.

No, you aren't. You can't sign away your rights, in any case. If you have a right to protection from unlawful searches, you can stand on that right notwithstanding any document to the contrary.

-Jester

[swirly]

The guy is a complete douchebag. End of story.

You are not standing up to "The Man". This is private property. Nobody is forcing you to go into the store. It's a search of the bag, not a body search or something crazy like that. If I thought you stole something from my house, I can't stop you? Now certainly, if you were a guest and I pointed a gun at you that is unreasonable, but asking to see a recipt? What do you think the recipt is for?
He should be donating ME money for having to read that.

Specifically I'm replying to "If I thought you stole something from my house, I can't stop you?". One of this guy's main points is that this isn't a case of suspicion. There was no "I thought he stole something and so asked to see his receipt." This is a case of searching without suspicion.

[Jester]

You're point about the need for people to stand up for their rights isn't wrong Jester. But I think to apply that to this case is giving him way too much credit. His actions aren't going to change anything for anyone, make anyone freer, preserve our rights more than before, make society better, or draw attention to a 'great injustice of society'.

You are entirely correct that this man is not a hero. He's a jerk. But...

Part of the spirit of the law is its blindness. Everyone is protected by it equally. That doesn't just mean the poor and downtrodden. It also means the rude, the awkward, and the antisocial. And if we forget that, then the weak and vulnerable are next, and after that, everybody else.

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

I agree in theory. But most major corporations tell their employees not to chase down people who are stealing. Instead, get a manager and let them deal with it. Corporations are very scared of being sued/looking bad in the media when an employee gets hurt chasing a criminal. In some cases, people have lost their jobs for reacting to a person stealing (a few weeks back this happened to an employee at home depot).

Cheers,

Munk

Problem here is that this guy was detained by the CC employee and manager after he left the property. In general the big box stores built in these strips (which is where the majority of CC's are located) don't have any right to detain people in their parking lots. These lots are not owned by the stores, they are maintained by the owners of the properties which the stores are renting from.

This guy obviously has an agenda and to some people that might make him a Jerk, but as far as the Circuit City altercation he was completely in the right. If they wanted to detain him they should have done it in the store. Once he was out the door the best policy is to just let them go. Some people in this thread have said he should have picked his battles better, but if you look at what he wanted to accomplish with his resistance he picked his battle perfectly. It was Circuit City who should have picked their battles better. The reason that these stores like Best Buy and I would assume Circuit City tell their employees not to chase possible shoplifters out of the stores is less an issue with their employees and more an issue of legal repercussions. When i worked at Best Buy there was a whole day spent in training on loss prevention and why you shouldn't chase a possible shoplifter. The reality is that if this individual ends up running into the street and getting hit or killed the legal repercussions to the store is vastly more expensive than anything they could possibly be running out of the store with. It's just not worth it.

The reason these stores have the Security Podiums at the exits is for the psychological deterant posed to shoplifters. They put them smack dab in front of the exits and pick the tallest, brawniest employee to stand there and stare down anyone who would think about stealing anything.

The reality of this whole situation is that most likely the criminal charges against this guy will be dropped. If he hadn't made such a public display with his blog etc. I would expect in this situation for the charges to be dropped at the first court date because the arresting officer wouldn't have bothered to show up. It happens a lot with these minor issues. Now that it's a big deal the Sheriffs office will need to put up a harder display and ironically it will end up costing this guy a lot more in legal fees because the case won't just get thrown out. The issue regarding Circuit City, however, is highly in this guys favor and will most likely be settled before it gets to court. And the two store employees will probably lose their jobs for the way they detained him.

[LochnarITB]

It's a search of the bag, not a body search or something crazy like that. If I thought you stole something from my house, I can't stop you?

It's not a body search yet. What happens when the inspections are not getting the desired results? Do they then start pat downs of everyone leaving the store? When things then continue to disappear, do they then require a cavity search to get out the door? Ridiculous, yes, but only in degree. As it is, they are detaining every customer, even just for a minute, with a false accusation of theft. If a customer has given reason to be suspected of theft, make a citizen's arrest and call the authorities to proceed. Otherwise, let your customers be on their way.

The guy picked a fight for sure. Involving his family without their knowledge (assumed - they might have been totally supporting him) was not good. He was, however, making a stand against an erosion of all of our rights in a way that will get far more attention than letter writing to the corporation (read - insert in circular file) would ever get. If you believe your right to protection from an illegal search is pointless, then you can say there is no harm in the inspections. If you do hold to your right, then you have to agree that his basis was sound, even if you don't agree with his method. The real jerk in this situation is the corporation that put the worker in the position to have to deal with anyone wanting to make just such a stand.

[Munkay]

Problem here is that this guy was detained by the CC employee and manager after he left the property. In general the big box stores built in these strips (which is where the majority of CC's are located) don't have any right to detain people in their parking lots. These lots are not owned by the stores, they are maintained by the owners of the properties which the stores are renting from.
[...]

We're in agreement then:)

My post was agreeing with Nystul that it shouldn't have spilled over into the parking lot and the man's car. You have a split second to decide at the door if you should prevent them from leaving the doors, or let them go. Once they are out the door, its either call the police and review tape or let it go. I was merely pointing out that I agree with the sentiment of grab the guy at the door, but the reality of our day and age (and of corporate policy) is to let the man walk out if he refuses verbal commands.

Cheers,

Munk

[Chesspiece_face]

We're in agreement then:)

My post was agreeing with Nystul that it shouldn't have spilled over into the parking lot and the man's car. You have a split second to decide at the door if you should prevent them from leaving the doors, or let them go. Once they are out the door, its either call the police and review tape or let it go. I was merely pointing out that I agree with the sentiment of grab the guy at the door, but the reality of our day and age (and of corporate policy) is to let the man walk out if he refuses verbal commands.

Cheers,

Munk

Definately, I think i mistakenly replied to your post when i wast trying to comment on a different one. Either way, my points still stand.

[Concillian]

Not necessary. By coming onto their private property, you are agreeing to their posted policies, which include reasonable searches of bags.

Apparently you didn't read the part of my comment where I said to assume the searches were illegal.

My point, since you clearly missed it by a mile, was that it doesn't matter whether or not they are legal, the logical conclusion of either case is the same, therefore not worth the effort.

[Munkay]

It's not a body search yet. What happens when the inspections are not getting the desired results? Do they then start pat downs of everyone leaving the store? When things then continue to disappear, do they then require a cavity search to get out the door? Ridiculous, yes, but only in degree. As it is, they are detaining every customer, even just for a minute, with a false accusation of theft. If a customer has given reason to be suspected of theft, make a citizen's arrest and call the authorities to proceed. Otherwise, let your customers be on their way.

The guy picked a fight for sure. Involving his family without their knowledge (assumed - they might have been totally supporting him) was not good. He was, however, making a stand against an erosion of all of our rights in a way that will get far more attention than letter writing to the corporation (read - insert in circular file) would ever get. If you believe your right to protection from an illegal search is pointless, then you can say there is no harm in the inspections. If you do hold to your right, then you have to agree that his basis was sound, even if you don't agree with his method. The real jerk in this situation is the corporation that put the worker in the position to have to deal with anyone wanting to make just such a stand.

I understand your concern about this becoming a slippery slope, but I think in this case its unwarranted. The offender is a corporation, who ultimately relies on its customer base to remain afloat. If they become too Draconian in their efforts in 'loss-prevention', they will lose their customers. And since the stores in question are resellers, and subsequently aren't the only place to buy a product, there will never be enough of a monopoly on the market that you have to shop there.

The truth of the matter is theft costs big companies millions (some billions) of dollars a year. My question to everyone, is what can be done to remedy the situation? I'd love to hear some constructive ideas on this topic. Like it or not, the bag checkers are effective deterrents. If you take them away, what practices to you put in their place that are not only less obtrusive, but keep shoplifting down?

Anyone?

Cheers,

Munk

[Archon_Wing]

Specifically I'm replying to "If I thought you stole something from my house, I can't stop you?". One of this guy's main points is that this isn't a case of suspicion. There was no "I thought he stole something and so asked to see his receipt." This is a case of searching without suspicion.

How is asking to see a recipt any diffrent from a train conductor asking to see a ticket? And refusing to show something simple as a recipt is quite suspicous.

If they were deliberately targeting him then maybe that is a diffrent story.

[Archon_Wing]

It's not a body search yet. What happens when the inspections are not getting the desired results? Do they then start pat downs of everyone leaving the store? When things then continue to disappear, do they then require a cavity search to get out the door? Ridiculous, yes, but only in degree. As it is, they are detaining every customer, even just for a minute, with a false accusation of theft.

Yea, sure and they'll start shooting people too!;)There is a line to be crossed, but I don't really see it being crossed [in regards to the original request]. There has to be some degree of compormise for interaction to occur. The store can't just shoot you because it thinks you are stealing, and you might have to prove that you actually bought things. There has to be a balance or otherwise the buisness can't really run. Remember, that you can always not do buisness with them and convince everyone around you to do so too.

Also, unreasonable requests like pat downs are considered by me to be a unecessary violation of privacy and I have responded not so politely to something like that before. I have and will assert my rights when apporiate. However, I don't see it being signfigant here.

But... despite this, the cop's actions are another story.

[Chesspiece_face]

How is asking to see a recipt any diffrent from a train conductor asking to see a ticket? And refusing to show something simple as a recipt is quite suspicous.

If they were deliberately targeting him then maybe that is a diffrent story.

As far as i'm concerned the issue with asking for a reciept isn't really what is in contention here. The problem is that the act of asking for the receipt is a psychological deterant for shoplifting, the idea is that you will end up stopping more people from attempting to shoplift than you actually catch with erroneous receipts. What this guy has an issue with is that the proccess of checking these receipts creates an atmosphere in which the honest customers are the ones who end up on the recieving end of the suspicion not the shoplifters (like i previously mentioned the policy is designed to stop shoplifting before it even gets to the point of the reciept check, leaving 99% of the people who are being targeted as loyal customers).

An additional issue here is that the policy, in the end, lacks any teeth. It is only a psychological deterant. When any issue of contention over the check arises, as we can see in this example, the policy falls to pieces. Comparisons to airport security in this case (as have been made by previous posters) are not accurate. Failure to comply with an airport check has well defined and carefully crafted consequences. In the case of the reciept check there are no such understood consequences. What options does the circuit city employee have in this case? And which option is the appropriate one from a business standpoint?

Firstly, if they actually felt this individual was a theft risk they should have detained him immediately and called the police (which in his blog he stated he was willing to wait for the authorities if they thought he had shoplifted). What's the worst that could happen? The police show up and he shows that he hasn't shoplifted anything. The problem with this, and why this action was not taken, is that the employees are not trained to actually deal with any loss prevention. These people standing at the podium are not specially trained. they are assinged that position because they look more imposing than any of the other employees there that day, or because they have more seniority/experience. Again: No Teeth.

Secondly, the "security" employee could have just let the guy walk out the door after being rebuked. If the case was as this guy writes and he bought a Wii game for his sister, than he was walking out the door with a bag the size of a DVD. The employee could have walked over to the register after the guy left, checked the copy of the reciept they have on file (which all the stores keep.) and then if things were suspicious alerted his manager and they could have called the police with their evidence and the stores video files. As far as i'm concerened, this particular action wasn't taken because many of these "security" employees get a hard-on for their AuthoriTAH! and just can't stand to let someone past with the last laugh.

In the end the policy just leads to bad business. These reciept checks are a "soft" loss policy which these stores use because they don't want to spend the money to hire or create any more in-depth loss prevention. This creates a bad situation where these employees get a big head over power which they don't actually have and the end result is that instances like this get blown wildly out of preportion. The guy wasn't even detained because he was suspected of shoplifting, he was detained because he refused to comply with their search. "Respect my AUTHORI-TAH!" indeed.

If these stores decide to continue to use these reciept checks the employees should be fully trained in how to handle non-compliance. There should be no gray area of what actions they should take. If the store decides that it is best to wait and alert a manager than they need to accept the fact that detention of the suspect is probably out of the question. If you detain everyone who leaves the store without showing a proper reciept, however, you probably won't end up looking very good to your customers. The best course for business is probably to just monitor what the individual is leaving with and then check the store's copy of the reciept. This would keep as little of the effects as possible off your legit/paying customers while still maintaining the "soft" psychological deterant.

Other ways to deter shoplifting which doesn't involve putting undue pressure on your customers would be issues like store layout/design. A well designed store can end up deterring more shoplifters than anything.

Edit: And if Circuit City was in any way truly interested in quality customer service or loss prevention they probably wouldn't go out and fire all their well paid workers so they could replace them with minimum wagers.

[Archon_Wing]

In the end the policy just leads to bad business. These reciept checks are a "soft" loss policy which these stores use because they don't want to spend the money to hire or create any more in-depth loss prevention. This creates a bad situation where these employees get a big head over power which they don't actually have and the end result is that instances like this get blown wildly out of preportion. The guy wasn't even detained because he was suspected of shoplifting, he was detained because he refused to comply with their search. "Respect my AUTHORI-TAH!" indeed.

If these stores decide to continue to use these reciept checks the employees should be fully trained in how to handle non-compliance. There should be no gray area of what actions they should take. If the store decides that it is best to wait and alert a manager than they need to accept the fact that detention of the suspect is probably out of the question. If you detain everyone who leaves the store without showing a proper reciept, however, you probably won't end up looking very good to your customers. The best course for business is probably to just monitor what the individual is leaving with and then check the store's copy of the reciept. This would keep as little of the effects as possible off your legit/paying customers while still maintaining the "soft" psychological deterant.

Other ways to deter shoplifting which doesn't involve putting undue pressure on your customers would be issues like store layout/design. A well designed store can end up deterring more shoplifters than anything.

This is all very true. Give an idiot a weapon, and.... *points to signature*
Policies need to be concrete. You can't expect employees to do everything according to what you anticipate. Imagine writing a computer program; that's how it should be.
And this applies to both the police and security employees. Indeed, we can see the problem overlap.

IMO, this is more of an issue of " people suck" then "zomg my rights"

[Mavfin]

No, you aren't. You can't sign away your rights, in any case. If you have a right to protection from unlawful searches, you can stand on that right notwithstanding any document to the contrary.

-Jester

Well, there's a line on that.

They can't search your person, or your personal bags without probable cause, etc. However, a bag that you get *from them* *in their store*, is a different case. They can ask you to show them what's in the bag, and match a receipt to the contents. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that's how the law works in this country, as far as I know. (i.e. you have reasonable protection on what you brought with you, but, they can make sure what you get from them is supposed to go with you or not)

(Note: I'm not going to touch the parking lot issues. That's a big can of worms)

[LochnarITB]

Yea, sure and they'll start shooting people too!;)

Still only ridiculous by degree. There was a time when you could have been shot on suspicion. The point I am trying to make is that they are accusing every customer of being a thief. If they say they aren't, then they have no basis to search. The customer's interaction has already taken place when they went through the checkout. If they truly believe a customer is in possession of items they have no right to, detain them and bring in the authorities. If they think a customer is honest and has just given them his hard earned money, then don't take further minutes from their busy day. I would make a large wager (was going to say "bet dollars to donuts" but not much of a wager anymore) that the practice has little impact on loss. The thieves that are the real problem will still get items out of the store and will not be intimidated by a blue shirt standing at the door.