Rights Violation or a Complete Jerk?

[Munkay]

The best solution, for both sides, is in store layout. If the store is laid out so that customers leaving the checkout can only exit the store, then there is truly no basis to search those customers. If they suspect a clerk of passing merchandise then security personnel should be watching that clerk, not falsely accusing every customer passing through that checkout. If a store bag were brought in, such as carrying something for return, it would be proper for the store to question the purpose of bringing in the bag and have a procedure for sealing the package and/or directing the customer to the proper location. I would also then consider it proper to inspect an unsealed store bag, being carried out the non-checkout door, as there should be no valid way for the person to have such a bag.

One nit: the stores are already built and laid out. I don't foresee a place like Best Buy redoing the checkout area to accomplish this goal. Not a bad idea for the future, but unfortunately not only that's going to make much of a difference in the next few years.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. How do you ensure that only customers who have checked out can use a specific exit? That's an honest question, no baiting involved. I've always been able to walk right through the register line. How can that be prevented (and take into account busy times of year like the Christmas-time mobs)?

[LochnarITB]

One nit: the stores are already built and laid out. I don't foresee a place like Best Buy redoing the checkout area to accomplish this goal. Not a bad idea for the future, but unfortunately not only that's going to make much of a difference in the next few years.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. How do you ensure that only customers who have checked out can use a specific exit? That's an honest question, no baiting involved. I've always been able to walk right through the register line. How can that be prevented (and take into account busy times of year like the Christmas-time mobs)?

Actually, I've seen them redoing layouts often. I've also seen stores that are already set up that way, some of our Targets I can remember specifically. The onus would be on the store to not allow people to walk right through the register line. If they can have somebody searching bags, they can instead have someone watching for that. The difference is that they are watching for someone to actually do something wrong, not assuming everyone has done something wrong until they prove they haven't. The issue is not to make something easier for the store, although layout should. They have to weigh their cost of implementation against cost of loss. The issue is to not falsely accuse good customers and put the burden of proof of innocence on them.

[Jarulf]

In my mind, the more compelling issue is under what circumstances (if any) the store has the right to detain someone suspected of theft until the police arrive. That is really the teeth of the issue.

In Sweden, the basic rule is that anyone can apprehend (is that the word?) and keep someone until the police arrives IF they catch someone actually commiting the crime (there is a limit in the seriousness of the crime though were this is allowed). This still doesn't give any other right, like searching. The result for a store is that they basically must catch you shop lifting, for example see you put something in your bag or in your pocket and then not pay for it.

An alternative is of course not to allow anyone to actually enter with bags to start with and instead having to desposit them at the entrance (many shops here has such lockers for bags) which of course eliminates much of the problem.


Regarding your thermos and metall detector. I would say that one can always dissalow someone to enter or to bring certain goods with them. Still, one could not search someone (of course, if someone volounter for a search, fine). So sure, they can have a metal detector and deny entrance to your thermos or you with it, but can't demand a search. I would say exceptions probably exists but would be covered in some way by the law.

This type of question pop up ever now and then in papers here when a store has demanded to look inside bags for various reasons (including seting off the alarm at the exit) and typically the answer and comment in the paper (often by the police) is that the store has no such right and did wrong. Of course, many stores and people thinks they can search and thus they get away with it.

Hence my question if anyone knew how it actually is in the US.

[Monkey]

There are certain stores, like Costco, that have 1 or 2 employees standing at the doors and examining every departing person's receipt. If CC is one of them (and I do not know if it is) then he is a real jerk.

OTOH, if he was singled out, then I think it is just a case of him having an attitude and I am not so sure that I do not like that attitude.

This is the crux--is the bag-checking applied to everyone and fully compliant with universal access/ anti-discrimination laws like the ADA? If so, then the customer in question could always shop somewhere else. In other words, CC's policy is probably legal. Of course, unless a precedent has been set, lawyering up will be required. That being said, the behavior of the manager, clerk, and policeman on the parking lot outside was very poor, and potentially quite illegal.

I am not a lawyer, I've just taken law cases and been threatened with a couple of lawsuits. Which, by the way, typically cost a minimum of $20,000. Makes me wonder if this guy really knew what he was doing.

[Lissa]

This is the crux--is the bag-checking applied to everyone and fully compliant with universal access/ anti-discrimination laws like the ADA? If so, then the customer in question could always shop somewhere else. In other words, CC's policy is probably legal. Of course, unless a precedent has been set, lawyering up will be required. That being said, the behavior of the manager, clerk, and policeman on the parking lot outside was very poor, and potentially quite illegal.

I am not a lawyer, I've just taken law cases and been threatened with a couple of lawsuits. Which, by the way, typically cost a minimum of $20,000. Makes me wonder if this guy really knew what he was doing.

From my experience, no, they don't bag check everyone, only some people. I've been bag checked and not bag checked at the same Best Buys on different trips to the store. The CCs I've been in have done the same, let one person pass while checking someone else. Not everyone is stopped from what I've seen. Now, whether they are picking people out based on demographics or not, I do not know, but I have seen that it is not universally enforced.

[Doc]

I will admit, I am an annoying JERK about these little violations of personal space and privacy.

Should I get bag checked and asked to see a receipt, I tell them no very firmly. Should they press the issue, I tell them that if they want to press the issue, I will just turn around, return my items, get my cash back, and go. I make it clear that I am here to purchase something, not to be harassed.

That usually shuts them right up and ends the situation.

When they do continue to push the issue, I do exactly as I said I was going to do, explain to the manager that is usually summoned why I am doing it, and as I walk out of the store I usually wave my money in the face of the bag checker that decided to make it a problem. The manager is usually pissed off that the policy cost a sale... Some are even more pissed when they try the old "We can only give you store credit" line of crap and I refuse to accept store credit because I make it very, very clear that I will never spend another dime in here ever again.

One incident involved several thousand dollars worth of merchandise at Sam's Club. Door checker got fired and the manager and I had to take a little trip to the bank because he wasn't allowed to pull that much cash from the registers. I wallowed in my own sense of smug satisfaction that day. Yes, I know, I am a jerk.

These little violations on our persons will continue for as long as people willingly bend over and accept a little dutch door action and allow themselves to be taken coming and going.

And I would be sorely tempted to have somebody blocking the car ran over. If only to change store policy that no "heroes" try to block a car.

Is this guy a jerk? No, not really. All things he considered, he was entirely to polite and didn't cause nearly enough trouble to be considered a real tool.

More people should do this though.

[Munkay]

More people should do this though.

I shutter to think of a society full of people acting that way. It's asinine to make a mountain out of a molehill every time your rights might be encroached upon, Doc. I'm well aware that's how you function, and I'm not trying to say you should change. But your musing that more people should act that way is laughable, to put it lightly.

Cheers,

Munk

[Doc]

I shutter to think of a society full of people acting that way. It's asinine to make a mountain out of a molehill every time your rights might be encroached upon, Doc. I'm well aware that's how you function, and I'm not trying to say you should change. But your musing that more people should act that way is laughable, to put it lightly.

Cheers,

Munk

If more people did this, these little ventures in to our own personal private space and our rights would not be trampled on. It is because people have become quiet and docile that these tactics continue to grow and gain frequency.

And it most certainly is not laughable at all. Civil disobedience is a perfectly acceptable form of protest and should be encouraged... And if enough people turn a molehill in to a mountain, certain folks would see that it is no longer a good idea to make the molehills in the first place.

Tell me, are you happy with a bunch of little molehills in your life? You let down your guard and accept just one... But that one soon gets company. And in no time at all, you have a bunch of little molehills and no level ground.

When enough people turn those molehills in to mountains, the balance will have to come along to level everything out. The molehills are an annoyance, but a mountain is an eyesore and much harder to ignore. For change to happen, you must cause the sort of problem that people can not ignore.

[Taem]

If more people did this, these little ventures in to our own personal private space and our rights would not be trampled on. It is because people have become quiet and docile that these tactics continue to grow and gain frequency.

And it most certainly is not laughable at all. Civil disobedience is a perfectly acceptable form of protest and should be encouraged... And if enough people turn a molehill in to a mountain, certain folks would see that it is no longer a good idea to make the molehills in the first place.

Tell me, are you happy with a bunch of little molehills in your life? You let down your guard and accept just one... But that one soon gets company. And in no time at all, you have a bunch of little molehills and no level ground.

When enough people turn those molehills in to mountains, the balance will have to come along to level everything out. The molehills are an annoyance, but a mountain is an eyesore and much harder to ignore. For change to happen, you must cause the sort of problem that people can not ignore.

Doc is right, but to a degree. You see, without demonstrators and civil disobedience in the US, blacks would still be in slavery, women would not have any rights, and quite possibly we would all have bar-codes on our forearms as part of the patriot act. However, on the other side of the coin, civil disobedience often leads to crime and unwarranted riots, such as the L.A. riots and more globally, riots that often happen after soccer games. So how do you know when "enough is enough?" I think that is the real issue, if this man went 'too far' to demonstrate his rights. I don't think so, but he could have done it without so much contempt in his actions, which probably could have avoided him being arrested' his contempt for the law is what went too far in my opinion, but he was right to question the authority of the store manager.

[Doc]

Doc is right, but to a degree. You see, without demonstrators and civil disobedience in the US, blacks would still be in slavery, women would not have any rights, and quite possibly we would all have bar-codes on our forearms as part of the patriot act. However, on the other side of the coin, civil disobedience often leads to crime and unwarranted riots, such as the L.A. riots and more globally, riots that often happen after soccer games. So how do you know when "enough is enough?" I think that is the real issue, if this man went 'too far' to demonstrate his rights. I don't think so, but he could have done it without so much contempt in his actions, which probably could have avoided him being arrested' his contempt for the law is what went too far in my opinion, but he was right to question the authority of the store manager.

Of course I am right. :rolleyes: If more nancy individuals stood up for themselves, there wouldn't be a need for people like me to make mountains out of a molehill. The problem would take care of it self. The problem is, to many people just bend over and take it for whatever reason. If folk would just stop doing that, I'd be stuck with eternal boredom. Not a pleasant thought.

Seriously though, all jokes and sarcasm aside... People need to understand that they must rock the boat once in a while or else pay the consequences. The tree of liberty must be watered with a little blood now and then, typically your own. People need a stronger sense of social responsibility... "Oh, I wont bother doing anything about this because somebody else will" and then thinking that the people that go out and do their work for them are jerks and assholes because they were to bumfark lazy or scared to do it for themselves. Folk would rather go about being quiet well programmed citizens, submissive, complacent, head and eyes down on the ground at their own feet ignoring the wrong around them, the very idea of causing a social stink causing them to shake and tremble from bad nerves. You might embarrass your self or draw attention to your self? OH NOES!!!

Doc, speaking with tongue partially in cheek.

[Archon_Wing]

I will admit, I am an annoying JERK about these little violations of personal space and privacy.

Should I get bag checked and asked to see a receipt, I tell them no very firmly. Should they press the issue, I tell them that if they want to press the issue, I will just turn around, return my items, get my cash back, and go. I make it clear that I am here to purchase something, not to be harassed.

That usually shuts them right up and ends the situation.

That would have been perfectly acceptable, and I would been on your side had something worse happened.
Building a mountain is fine, but I feel that how the mountain is built is also important.

[Doc]

That would have been perfectly acceptable, and I would been on your side had something worse happened.
Building a mountain is fine, but I feel that how the mountain is built is also important.

This is true. Do no harm. Be gentle. Be annoying, raise hell, but do not bring harm to others. Irritate with out injury. But make it very clear what your purpose is and how to make you stop.

And make it very clear that future violations will be met with escalated returns.

[Roland]

his contempt for the law is what went too far in my opinion

Contempt for the law? What contempt? What law? From all perspectives, he was unjustly arrested. Go back and re-read the article. Check the updates at the bottom. You'll notice he put up a section of law that states NO ONE is require to provide a driver's license while not operating a vehicle, ONLY your name, address, and date of birth.

2921.29 © Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

Now, you tell me where he had contempt, and then tell me why it wasn't warranted.

[Vandiablo]

2921.29 © Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

I'll bet that this section only applies to people not suspected of a crime. IMO the officer suspected him of being a shoplifter -- remember, the officer later said he was surprised that there was no illegal booty in the bag -- and so was not asking a citizen for papers, he was asking for proof from someone he suspected of theft and therefore of lying.

IMO the cop did what he should have. I know, let's raise defense money for HIM, a poor working stiff who has to deal with schmucks like that all the time.

IMO Righi is a jerk. He thought he was cute with the "No thanks" and thought he could just drive off into the sunset without consequence. It is jerks like this that cause the rest of us problems. Soon cashiers will have to hand the merchandise bag to the doorman, who will inspect it, and then give it to the customer as they walk out the door. The bag is not the property of the customer until the transaction is complete, (only the government can search a person IIRC) and now the transaction will be more definitive as being at the door as opposed to at the checkout.

You can tell Righi is a jerk, because he's publishing names of all those involved for maximum stink power. What a maroon.

-V
Gift Shop Greeter
The Forsaken Inn

(edit: mmiissppeelleedd jerko's name)

[Doc]

I'll bet that this section only applies to people not suspected of a crime. IMO the officer suspected him of being a shoplifter -- remember, the officer later said he was surprised that there was no illegal booty in the bag -- and so was not asking a citizen for papers, he was asking for proof from someone he suspected of theft and therefore of lying.

IMO the cop did what he should have. I know, let's raise defense money for HIM, a poor working stiff who has to deal with schmucks like that all the time.

IMO Righi is a jerk. He thought he was cute with the "No thanks" and thought he could just drive off into the sunset without consequence. It is jerks like this that cause the rest of us problems. Soon cashiers will have to hand the merchandise bag to the doorman, who will inspect it, and then give it to the customer as they walk out the door. The bag is not the property of the customer until the transaction is complete, (only the government can search a person IIRC) and now the transaction will be more definitive as being at the door as opposed to at the checkout.

You can tell Righi is a jerk, because he's publishing names of all those involved for maximum stink power. What a maroon.

-V
Gift Shop Greeter
The Forsaken Inn

(edit: mmiissppeelleedd jerko's name)

First off... Please, no racial slurs. Maroon is a slur, another word for n****r, specifically referring to Africans left on tiny islands in the Caribbean as slaves.

Second, once you pay cash for something, it is yours. Transaction OVER. No ands, ifs, or buts.

In this country, we are innocent until proven otherwise. The officer had no right to ask for anything, because there was NO PROOF at all that a crime had been committed. Video evidence suggesting otherwise? Fine, check the person. Otherwise, NO. The burden of proof is not on the accused but the accuser. Officer does not have a leg to stand on, there was absolutely nothing that implied that any criminal activity had taken place. No store dick came along and said he was suspicious on video... All the man had done was exercise his rights to refuse to be harassed.

I hope the officer in question winds up tarred and feathered, and hopefully removed from his job. I also hope that the department gets sued in to the stone age... It is the only way those folks seem to learn anything.

[Rhydderch Hael]

First off... Please, no racial slurs. Maroon is a slur, another word for n****r, specifically referring to Africans left on tiny islands in the Caribbean as slaves. ...

Vandiablo's construction of the phrase mimics a line in a Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies short with such faith that one can conclude he was referring to Bugs Bunny mussing up the word "moron".

[Vandiablo]

First off... Please, no racial slurs. Maroon is a slur, another word for n****r, specifically referring to Africans left on tiny islands in the Caribbean as slaves.

Nope, a Maroon is a National Hockey League player from the 1920's. I'm positive that's what Bugs Bunny was referring to. So lay off, eh?

Second, once you pay cash for something, it is yours. Transaction OVER. No ands, ifs, or buts.

hmmm... slaves included?

I think you misunderstood. I said THE BAG, as in the thin plastic thingie, is not his until he walks out of the store. I didn't mean the merchandise itself. The bag itself is a courtesy item provided by the store for the customer to use to carry the stuff to the door. After that, the customer may keep the bag as his own.

When you buy something that is on someone else's property there is, or should be, an agreement as what the plan is for the removal of your stuff from their property. Who gets to carry the stuff -- new owner, property owner, or third party?

In this country, we are innocent until proven otherwise. The officer had no right to ask for anything, because there was NO PROOF at all that a crime had been committed. Video evidence suggesting otherwise? Fine, check the person. Otherwise, NO. The burden of proof is not on the accused but the accuser. Officer does not have a leg to stand on, there was absolutely nothing that implied that any criminal activity had taken place. No store dick came along and said he was suspicious on video... All the man had done was exercise his rights to refuse to be harassed.

Innocent until proven guilty is the courtroom verdict standard, but I'm afraid the standard for being held is less than that, and the standard for being arrested is even lower. Flight risk is a big factor in the latter two, and cooperation in the latter, so jumping in a car at the curb after refusing inspection, and refusing to cooperate in identification were just increasing his suspicious behavior. I think the CC employees were overzealous, but I'm with the cop. Yay cop. Yay.

Poor cop didn't get the time to realize he was in a contrarian-libertarian-wannabe situation rather than the usual shoplifter scenario.

In this country, we also have enforcement techniques approved by judges, like sobriety checkpoints and unannounced visits by inspectors. However, if you were to perform random selection for bag inspection at a store, it would take about 5 minutes before you were hit with a discrimination suit -- so inspect everyone's store bag.

In other posts here, we've learned that checking the receipt isn't so much checking for shoplifters (who would have the stuff in their pants or purses) as it is a check for employees ringing up stuff they steal and take home. Too bad the CC doorman didn't realize that.

I hope the officer in question winds up tarred and feathered, and hopefully removed from his job. I also hope that the department gets sued in to the stone age... It is the only way those folks seem to learn anything.

And I hope someday Mr. Righi will realize that he ruined his sister's birthday by pointlessly exposing himself as a jackass. If you really give a rat's arse about rights in this country, you should be out marching against certain federal entities that are overreaching, not kicking CC employees. Sheesh.

-V

[Rhydderch Hael]

Nope, a Maroon is a National Hockey League player from the 1920's. I'm positive that's what Bugs Bunny was referring to. So lay off, eh? ...

Am reminded of an argument that blew up on another forum (I was a spectator, not a participant) when someone described the subject matter as idiotic or dumb or the like. This was met by a vitrolic accusation from a moderator that the fellow's argument shouldn't be based on a racial slur. There was an awkward pause, followed by the obvious question: just whom was he insulting?

Seems that the moderator saw the words and concluded that they called up the Celtic stereotype of low intelligence. That tilted more than a few heads, given that no one's Celtic heritage was ever broached in the discussion (though the moderator himself was of Celtic blood) and the existence of such a stereotype went completely over 99% of everybody's head.

In the end, the spat demonstrated how far a younger generation has come away from some distasteful elements of the past, and how an older generation couldn't allow it to go away.

[Vandiablo]

I placed money on a bitch in the third race. I got hungry since the boobs at the track were a bit niggardly with the redskins. So I went and got some groceries: crackers, beef patties, Nips, a can of 'kraut and some Ho-Ho's. Needed some Spic'n'Span too. Life as a spook is not always exciting, I reflected, as I wiped some gook off my shoes and pursed my lips on my last fag. Slow one week, but the next makes up for it in spades. Sometimes gives me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe being a dick would be easier - and it'd be fun to find chinks in people's armor.

nyuk nyuk nyuk, all the world's a stooge

can you spot the Celtic insult in there??

[Doc]

nyuk nyuk nyuk, all the world's a stooge

can you spot the Celtic insult in there??

Sigh. Leave the cracker culture alone. :rolleyes:

And no, for the record, Bugs was using the word maroon along with elements of blackface to imply n****r. I only said something because people carelessly throw this word around now thinking it is funny... The old slang is becoming fashionable again, so to speak, and quite a few folk I have encountered have no idea what the word maroon implies.

Also, the term applied to crackers since we are on that subject, Scots and Irish Celts taken in to slavery and hauled down to those islands to work on fruit and sugar plantations. (And don't you dare call it indentured servitude, it was slavery)

Also, quit being a misogynistic heel and stop saying boob you irritating gift shop bag checker. :w00t: