Rights Violation or a Complete Jerk?

[Munkay]

Doc is right, but to a degree.

That's just the thing, Doc's point isn't about degree. It's about pedal to the metal, fight for your rights tooth and nail every time.

The problem I have with imaging a society that functions such a way is there's no flexibility. There's no room to let bygones be bygones, to turn the other cheek. If you truly follow the maxim 'defend your rights', then you're forced to push back anytime you get pushed. Just take a moment and really think about what a society like that would be like. I'll tell you point blank it'd be very far from the civil lives most of us enjoy.

Now, I understand the knee jerk reaction. And I don't blame many of the posters for reacting to my point negatively. And that's why I wanted to respond, I feel I need to clarify my point. First and foremost I'm not against fighting for your rights. Personally, I have a deep love for the black civil rights movement, womens suffrage and womens civil rights, a love that an entire bookshelf of books can attest to. Not only do I think their actions were warranted, I think they were hero's for fighting against true injustice. They were smart, organized, and fought through as many channels as they could. And when those didn't work, they innovated and pushed on until change started to happen.

But the truth is this man isn't a hero like Ella Baker. It wasn't an effective and organized protest for change like SNCC's freedom rides. Standing up for your rights is about a goal. It's about fighting off true injustice and inequality in order to create a caring, peaceful, and functioning society - whether that be done as a great melting pot of homogenized culture, or as independent fingers on the hand of American culture.

Justice may be blind, but fighting blindly for your rights isn't just. The greater goal of this man's actions wasn't to create change for a better and more peaceful society - I believe if it was, he'd of started through the correct channels of protest (to the corporate level etc), and then upon their non-action, organized and committed civil disobedience. This man's actions were using the right to our Civil Rights as a sword, to exact the privilege guaranteed by being an American.

I know people will still disagree with me, and believe that fighting for your rights no matter how its done or in what context is correct. I know Doc will disagree with me vehemently, which I accept. But if you really stop a minute and think about a society of people blindly wielding their rights as a sword, I think you'll agree that it's not a better society. But just take a minute and really ask yourself, is this man a hero like the MLK Jr.'s of the world, or is he more like the DC Judge who wants 56 million dollars for his lost dry-cleaned pants (they did say 'satisfaction guaranteed', and after all isn't it his right to sue them when they don't live up to that standard?).

Cheers,

Munk

Edit: Left an extra paragraph at the bottom.

[Doc]

That's just the thing, Doc's point isn't about degree. It's about pedal to the metal, fight for your rights tooth and nail every time.

The problem I have with imaging a society that functions such a way is there's no flexibility. There's no room to let bygones be bygones, to turn the other cheek. If you truly follow the maxim 'defend your rights', then you're forced to push back anytime you get pushed. Just take a moment and really think about what a society like that would be like. I'll tell you point blank it'd be very far from the civil lives most of us enjoy.

Now, I understand the knee jerk reaction. And I don't blame many of the posters for reacting to my point negatively. And that's why I wanted to respond, I feel I need to clarify my point. First and foremost I'm not against fighting for your rights. Personally, I have a deep love for the black civil rights movement, womens suffrage and womens civil rights, a love that an entire bookshelf of books can attest to. Not only do I think their actions were warranted, I think they were hero's for fighting against true injustice. They were smart, organized, and fought through as many channels as they could. And when those didn't work, they innovated and pushed on until change started to happen.

But the truth is this man isn't a hero like Ella Baker. It wasn't an effective and organized protest for change like SNCC's freedom rides. Standing up for your rights is about a goal. It's about fighting off true injustice and inequality in order to create a caring, peaceful, and functioning society - whether that be done as a great melting pot of homogenized culture, or as independent fingers on the hand of American culture.

Justice may be blind, but fighting blindly for your rights isn't just. The greater goal of this man's actions wasn't to create change for a better and more peaceful society - I believe if it was, he'd of started through the correct channels of protest (to the corporate level etc), and then upon their non-action, organized and committed civil disobedience. This man's actions were using the right to our Civil Rights as a sword, to exact the privilege guaranteed by being an American.

I know people will still disagree with me, and believe that fighting for your rights no matter how its done or in what context is correct. I know Doc will disagree with me vehemently, which I accept. But if you really stop a minute and think about a society of people blindly wielding their rights as a sword, I think you'll agree that it's not a better society. But just take a minute and really ask yourself, is this man a hero like the MLK Jr.'s of the world, or is he more like the DC Judge who wants 56 million dollars for his lost dry-cleaned pants (they did say 'satisfaction guaranteed', and after all isn't it his right to sue them when they don't live up to that standard?).

Cheers,

Munk

Edit: Left an extra paragraph at the bottom.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. In fact, I don't disagree with your post at all. You are absolutely correct in your line of thinking.
'
However, I am also correct in that the little things do matter, and it is important to nudge back when nudged, push back when pushed, shove back when shoved, and shoot back when fired upon. See the points of escalation there? Opening fire when you are merely nudged IS the wrong thing to do. You are absolutely correct in your thinking there. Your logic is sound.

This man got played a ball. He lobbed it back in to their court. They escalated the game and shot the ball back to his side of the field, and he returned it in kind, totally fair play up to this point. And to make a complete failure of this sports analogy, the other side cheated and a referee that had no clue what was going on made a bad call, which for all likelihood, he will be punished.

Not everything has to be a battle, but it takes two to tango. If somebody asks me for a receipt, and I say no, ball is in their court. From there, their play. Not mine. It becomes their responsibility. If they insist, and press the issue, the responsibility passes to me to deal with their wrongdoing. Not every infraction requires a lunch counter sit in, but every infraction requires action, or at least some kind of action or acknowledgment lest we become complacent and lax in our own civic duties and begin to slide in to the very sort of mess we seem to be miring in right now where we have dozens of protrusions in to our privacy, our rights, and our personal space.

One thing that is very important to learn about civil disobedience as protest is to only push back as hard as you need to achieve equilibrium. And no harder. Unless of course the situation demands that the scales be completely demolished and a new system of checks and balances be built. (See women's suffrage and the civil rights movement) You don't go off and riot and set fire to stuff just because somebody asks to see a receipt. You do however, draw attention to the issue and demand recognition that your rights have been violated. There is a fine line here... And it takes a real asshole to push the issue right to that line but no farther. This guy is not telling people to go out and set fire to Circuit City... He is trying to make sure that his voice is not drowned out over this little unfairness or this injustice. He wants to be heard, he wants his rights. That's all. And he has the conviction and the gumption to stick up for himself and make himself heard. The cowardly sorts are going to gripe, piss, bitch, and moan about how he should have just shut up and took it, or that he is a jerk, or how wrong he is, but that is only because they are cowards. It galls them because they lack enough personal convictions or the stones to do it for themselves and they want to draw attention away from that fact by demonising the sheep that stood out. He didn't do enough to be a hero, but he did just enough to stand out, and that makes him an object of ridicule by the masses. The lone do-gooder that ventures forth to achieve his own ends is always alone, until he has his reward, at which time all the people mocking him and deriding him step forward to claim what they feel is their fair share of his reward.

[Hammerskjold]

(Some of my ramblings are not a direct reply to you Munk, some are just a response to the thread points in general. The ones with a +1 comment are mostly in agreement to your points though.)

>The problem I have with imaging a society that functions such a way is there's no flexibility. There's no room to let bygones be bygones, to turn the other cheek.

+1 to that. Also while I agree that to forget history is to be doomed to repeat it, there is such a thing as taking it too far. Are people going to be all up in arms when someone uses an archaic slur, like 'blackguard'? Onoez! It's racist! Or is it?

http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2005...ouse-wives.html

As mentioned in this thread already, some words and terms have been declawed or changed due to time and context. Some gains a new negative meaning. A lot has to do with it's context and fashion. For all I know, 100 years from now the foulest word one can utter in the future would be what's benign in our time. Like, um, plebiscite.

"Your mother unit00d1 frungles with plebiscites, you blackguard!' (That will sting so much worse than being called a 'Maroon' in about 100 years.)






>But the truth is this man isn't a hero like Ella Baker. It wasn't an effective and organized protest for change like SNCC's freedom rides. Standing up for your rights is about a goal.

+1 again. This blogger did not play smart imo by 'playing dumb'. He should've thought about playing to win.
Playing the reluctant hero card is tenuous at best to me right now.

All this talk about rights and knowing your rights fighting for your rights, hey I got a question. Where's the other side of that coin, responsibility?

This blogger had a responsibility to keep his cool since his siblings sounds like they were too young to sign up for this kind of fight. That doesn't mean children should not learn about civic rights, duties and responsibilities, but the situation described is not the best way to impart a meaningful lesson.

He had opportunities to de-escalate, and pick a better time to fight. But like a lot of people, it sounds like he got swept up by the moment. While I can understand that, it's no great excuse. And I'm speaking from personal experience on that.

As for the cop, he might have very well be in the wrong. But here's my 2 cents on it. I grew up in a country where if you were stopped by the local police, you better have the bribe ready. If there was a crime in your neighbourhood, the police would be the last people you want to inform, because they can make things worse.

When I moved to N. America, my experiences with cops were quite different. Does that mean that they are perfect? Hell no. There's definitely some bad apples, corrupt and rotten to the core. Nothing more than a bully with a badge. But in my experience at least, they are in the minority overall and there are still some safeguards to deal with that kind of situation. YMMV.

But let's get real for a second. Most cops want to know only 2 things when they first arrive. Who are you, and are you a Bad Guy? Did this blogger clearly identified himself as the guy who called the cops in the first place?

It's amazing what can happen if you manage to get the cop to relax by helping him realize you are -not- a Bad Guy, and the cops can sympathize with you. They might actually help you! Does that mean you surrender all your rights to anyone with a badge? Of course not. But it's amazing what can happen if you try to put yourself in the flat foot's shoes and act accordingly. They might even -gasp- be on your side.




Bottom line for me and a final bow out.

For those who yell they know their rights, do they know their responsibilities as well?

[Jester]

And no, for the record, Bugs was using the word maroon along with elements of blackface to imply n****r.

For the record, Bugs was mispronouncing "moron." It was no more meant as a real word than "ignoranamus" or "imbesal."

Which is not to say that Bugs Bunny cartoons did not contain extremely racist elements, including blackface.

Just in case anyone was curious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rok4Hfrt_sU

Amazing that Elmer Fudd could actually be smarter than something, but the portrayal is just that bad.

-Jester

[Taem]

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.

Isn't there a law stating you must comply with the requests of police officers? This is mostly for their protection. When I was in high school, a friend and I were walking down the sidewalk at night when a cop drove by in his car and shown his light on us. He told [shouted actually] us to "stop" and that he was going to search us. I told him he didn't have any right to search us because neither of us had "search and seizure", not did either of us have a criminal record to which he replied by putting his hand on his gun and telling us to "get the *uck on the ground with your hands in the air." My friend complied by I coolly stared the cop down and sat on the side of the curb with my hands at my side. Backup arrived and the cops questioned us about where we had been earlier that evening then proceeded to search our persona. Of course, they didn't find whatever the hell they were looking for because we had just come from his house and were en route to my house. Before releasing us, the cops told us they had reports of teenagers stealing radios out of cars and we matched the description of two teenagers with a backpack, so they searched us.

IMO, this is the same situation; store clerk tells cop man is trying to steal goods. By law, he has the right to detain and search him for these goods. I'm sure his asking for the mans license was simply to compare it to the credit card name on the receipt - the cop probably thought the credit card was stolen and wanted to make sure because of the man's suspicious behavior. The cop had every right, for his own protection, to do what he did and I hope Joe Smuck gets in trouble for his actions with the law. As to the store policy, that's up for debate.

[Taelas]

The cop had every right, for his own protection, to do what he did and I hope Joe Smuck gets in trouble for his actions with the law. As to the store policy, that's up for debate.

Wrong. The officer might have been well within his rights to ask for identification. Of course, asking for the driver's license is simply a faster way of doing so, but when the man refused, the officer should have said, "I need you to provide me with some kind of identification", not arrest the man because he refuses to show his driver's license (as there is no law that I am aware of which specifically states that you must show your driver's license upon a police officer's request, unless you're operating a vehicle).

Yes, the guy was being a jerk for not just providing the license, but the officer shouldn't have arrested him on that basis. Just demand that he show some kind of identification instead.

Of course, the officer probably either didn't realize Righi wasn't refusing showing identification (at least as I understood it, he only refused to show the officer the driver's license on matter of principle as he wasn't driving at the time), or he didn't care for the guy's attitude and wanted to teach him a lesson.

I find myself agreeing with Righi's actions, at least in principle. As I see it, he was well within his rights every step of the way.

[Chesspiece_face]

Wrong. The officer might have been well within his rights to ask for identification. Of course, asking for the driver's license is simply a faster way of doing so, but when the man refused, the officer should have said, "I need you to provide me with some kind of identification", not arrest the man because he refuses to show his driver's license (as there is no law that I am aware of which specifically states that you must show your driver's license upon a police officer's request, unless you're operating a vehicle).

Herein lies the sticky area of the issue as far as the law goes. The police officer is completely in the right to ask for identification. Not specifically a driver's license because, when you get right down to it, all a driver's license is is a permit to operate a moter vehicle. As the guy was not operating a vehicle he was under no obligation to produce a driver's license as identification. If the officer asked the guy to produce identification and he didn't have identification on him the officer has the right to detain him until the man can be properly identified (he would not be legally under arrest at this point.) If the officer asked the man to produce identification, but not specifically ask for a driver's license, and the guy had a driver's license on him (which he admits he did) but the man still refused to show this identification in the form of a driver's license the officer has every right to arrest him for obstructing a police investigation. The little things here make all the difference as far as the law is concerned.

The man had identification on him in the form of a driver's license.

If the officer asks specifically for a driver's license the man is allowed to refuse to show it.

If the officer asks for identification in general however, and the man refuses to show the driver's license he has on him than the man can be detained until his identification can be established and if it is found out that he had his driver's license on him after the officer asked for identification he can be placed under arrest for obstructing a police investigation.

As the case is presented, so far, it is clear that the officer was not in his rights to arrest the man for not producing a driver's license specifically.

[Taem]

EDIT: Chesspiece_face posted a good reply I felt my reply fit into quite nicely, so I'm deleting this one and adding my reply to his post.

[Taem]

Wrong. The officer might have been well within his rights to ask for identification. Of course, asking for the driver's license is simply a faster way of doing so, but when the man refused, the officer should have said, "I need you to provide me with some kind of identification", not arrest the man because he refuses to show his driver's license (as there is no law that I am aware of which specifically states that you must show your driver's license upon a police officer's request, unless you're operating a vehicle).

Yes, the guy was being a jerk for not just providing the license, but the officer shouldn't have arrested him on that basis. Just demand that he show some kind of identification instead.

Of course, the officer probably either didn't realize Righi wasn't refusing showing identification (at least as I understood it, he only refused to show the officer the driver's license on matter of principle as he wasn't driving at the time), or he didn't care for the guy's attitude and wanted to teach him a lesson.

I find myself agreeing with Righi's actions, at least in principle. As I see it, he was well within his rights every step of the way.

I have a feeling there is more to this story than the man's blog has let on. Most peace officers have better training that to do something illegal, and to not read the man his Miranda rights? The man must have been acting quite agitated IMO. I'm quite sure without knowing all of the facts that this story is very one-sided, and I'm almost certain that the peace officer did what he felt was necessary to defuse the situation before is escalated.

[Vandiablo]

The cowardly sorts are going to gripe, piss, bitch, and moan about how he should have just shut up and took it, or that he is a jerk, or how wrong he is, but that is only because they are cowards. It galls them because they lack enough personal convictions or the stones to do it for themselves and they want to draw attention away from that fact by demonising the sheep that stood out.

Heh. Well the problem is that way too many people are constantly trying to show their stones but wind up showing they're assholes.

Maybe you can't tell the difference anymore. (Your sense of smell is probably next to nothing because of your Amazing Superpower. [For those of you who don't know, Doc produces more methane than is medically possible.])

As for the coward part, well. It sounds more than vaguely familiar. It sounds very familiar. In fact, add a more jingoistic tone and it's very recognizable. You are at the level of an America First-er, the people who would say "Those who say anything against the war are cowards, cut-and-runners, and traitors". These Firsters would be pathetic except there are so damn many of them, and go up so high in the administration. In reality, the more brave souls are the ones who have spoken against the war from the beginning, or those who said, when we botched it, that we botched it. The cowards are the ones that don't speak up, or just follow the jingoists.

When I allow the bag to be checked, it is not timidity. It is a willful cooperation to serve a shared purpose - to reduce shoplifting. After reading this thread, I now know more about it, and would now say the purpose is to reduce theft, a slight difference. Anyway, to many, timidity and willful cooperation are the same -- but the difference, as you allude, is whether there's conviction involved. I have convictions -- and many of them are that much more is achieved by people working together toward common goals rather than Look Out For Number One. The problem with Look Out For Number One people is usually they are too full of Number Two.

So, why am I for this search, while I am against the government, or anyone, checking what I get from the library, or do on the internet, or reading my email, or bugging my house etc etc ?? A fair question, a good question, and one that has me performing some self-inspection (which helps me relax while I think HAW HAW *snort*) I guess to me the difference is that checking the bag is a very specific test (not casting a wide net) and more importantly, the checker doesn't care who I am. It's either good bag or bad bag, it's not OMG look what you're buying you are certainly a p0rn0graph3r. Also, buying at that store is voluntary.

To me, there's very little difference between the bag check and the automatic sensors at the library. (I know we've had posts comparing auto vs. manual checks.) One time I was leaving my local county library, with a full backpack, and the alarms went off. Did I go, NO WAY YOU'RE LOOKING IN MY BAG and head for the car? Or, frightened of the librarians, did I wait there until they had their way with me?? (Tempting, because I have a Thing for librarians.) What I did was go back to the desk with the attitude, let's figure out why the alarm is going off. I looked in my bag, and guessed that the likely culprit was the book I had in there from my college library. I pulled that out, walked it over to the sensors, and yep, the book set them off. I showed them the book, and they saw it was not a county book (and they probably also decided it wasn't stolen from the college library either). I put the book back in, and walked out, setting off the alarm for the third time, which they ignored. It was in this way I was able to steal 10 books from the county library . . . just kidding. So the auto thing is only as good as the people enforcing it, so it's back to manual. (By the way I feel anyone who steals from a library deserves to be cast into a lake of outdated periodicals, and to spend eternity reading the tripe written for IT managers.)

-V
Traveler's Library Volunteer
The Forsaken Inn

[kandrathe]

I have a feeling there is more to this story than the man's blog has let on. Most peace officers have better training that to do something illegal, and to not read the man his Miranda rights? The man must have been acting quite agitated IMO. I'm quite sure without knowing all of the facts that this story is very one-sided, and I'm almost certain that the peace officer did what he felt was necessary to defuse the situation before is escalated.

Consider HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al..

Ohio's Stop and Identify Law

It would appear to me that the officer, after asking for DL and being refused, could have within the law asked for Name, Address and DOB. Since he was not charged with that 2921.29 statute, which is corroborated by what Righi describes happened, then the charges of obstruction are not valid.

[Archon_Wing]

Isn't there a law stating you must comply with the requests of police officers? This is mostly for their protection. When I was in high school, a friend and I were walking down the sidewalk at night when a cop drove by in his car and shown his light on us. He told [shouted actually] us to "stop" and that he was going to search us. I told him he didn't have any right to search us because neither of us had "search and seizure", not did either of us have a criminal record to which he replied by putting his hand on his gun and telling us to "get the *uck on the ground with your hands in the air." My friend complied by I coolly stared the cop down and sat on the side of the curb with my hands at my side. Backup arrived and the cops questioned us about where we had been earlier that evening then proceeded to search our persona. Of course, they didn't find whatever the hell they were looking for because we had just come from his house and were en route to my house. Before releasing us, the cops told us they had reports of teenagers stealing radios out of cars and we matched the description of two teenagers with a backpack, so they searched us.

Holy crap, just reading that makes me pissed off. "Two teenagers with a backpack", wow what a great description. That was a blatant abuse of power, and I sure hope that cop suffers a terrible fate. WHO THE #$%& THREATENS A GUN AT TEENAGERS THAT HAVEN'T SHOWN ANY SIGN OF BEING A DANGER?

[Taem]

Holy crap, just reading that makes me pissed off. "Two teenagers with a backpack", wow what a great description. That was a blatant abuse of power, and I sure hope that cop suffers a terrible fate. WHO THE #$%& THREATENS A GUN AT TEENAGERS THAT HAVEN'T SHOWN ANY SIGN OF BEING A DANGER?

Yes, that's exactly how I felt at the time, trust me! But truth is, everyone out here knows the Santa Barbara police department (the county sheriffs in particular) can have quite a hardball point of view, most of them having transfered from the L.A. divisions themselves with their big-city mentality. There were several times where I felt my civil liberties were being violated by the S.B. police, but I rationalized it as it must be something I'm doing, perhaps an energy I left off when around them? Who knows?

Let me tell you about this one incident where I actually got so mad, I asked the sheriff for his badge number but he just walked away from me: It was about noon'ish 10-years ago. I was driving in my blue Chrysler mini-van with my 1-year child in his car seat behind me. Out of nowhere, the local sheriff rolls up behind me in his patrol car and flashes the lights. I oblige him by pulling over, rolling down my window, and getting ready my license, insurance, and registration. Of course he sits there for a bit, running the plate - and it came up without any warrants or anything I assure you! He then comes up to my window and says, "license and registration," without so much as telling me what I'm being pulled over for. I show him my information and he stands at my window examining it when my kid starts crying. I tell the officer I'm going to get my kid and he tells me to, "SIT DOWN!" Then he walks to his patrol car with my wallet and sits in his car - he doesn't even punch in any information so I'm not sure what the hell he was doing. I kid you not, slightly less than 10-minutes later he comes back, and by this time my kids screaming high hell and I'm afraid to get out of my seat because this cop seems irate and I don't want him to try taking my child or anything, even though I know he is detaining me illegally. When he walks back up, I ask him what I was being pulled over for and he ignores me and hands me my wallet. I then demand to know his badge number to which he responded by getting into his patrol car and driving away. Man, I still get mad just thinking about that asshole! It makes it hard to trust any cop, but then I realized that he was just one out of many. I still believe cops are just as corruptible as the rest of us [absolute power corrupts/power corrupts absolutely], and while I hold certain reservations when I meet one, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Munkay]

Let me tell you about this one incident...

Wow. Let me just say I completely understand your anger and frustration. I also commend you highly for being able to realize that although there are some bad cops out there, not all of them are like that guy - not an easy thing to do after an event like that!

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

Wow. Let me just say I completely understand your anger and frustration. I also commend you highly for being able to realize that although there are some bad cops out there, not all of them are like that guy - not an easy thing to do after an event like that!

Cheers,

Munk

I've had similar experiences. Not all are bad, but many seem flush with their power. When I was 16, my 15 year old sister and I were walking her friend home one twilight since homicidal maniacs avoid crowds. We lived about 1/2 a mile into the sticks on the north side of the tar road, and the friend lived about 1/2 mile into the sticks on the south side of the tar road. Just as we crossed the tar road, at the intersection 5/8 mile north of us on the tar a car suddenly screeched to a halt, screamed around in a donut at high speed and raced back towards us. We all went as fast as we could into the brush and the swamps fearing the deranged psycho killer from which we were protecting our friend. He must have been doing 80 when he locked up the brakes where we had been standing some seconds earlier. No, not the homicidal maniac, as we discovered when he began to scour the brush with his search light, then we could see it was a cop. Then, there was this brother of a friend of mine who became a cop, but as an adolescent he and his friends thought it was fun to cruise around the black bars in town and slash tires, and pick fights. He wanted to become a cop so he could carry a gun, hurt and terrorize people as a part of his job. Then there were other times, like when the cop released his dog on me while I was feeding my horse at the State Fair. He and his buddies had a laugh. Ha ha, ya know, scare the citizen. I know they are not all a-holes, but I can't help but to reserve judgment until they prove friendly.

[Bolty]

FYI, in case anyone's interested, the followup to all this has been posted. Essentially, he agreed to not sue the city in exchange for having the record of his arrest expunged and dropped. No admittal of wrongdoing by the city. He decided not to involve his family in a long legal battle. He also gave all the money donated to him over to the ACLU, so his legal defense amounted to about a $10,000 hit to him.

Follow the link for more.

-Bolty

[kandrathe]

...He decided not to involve his family in a long legal battle.

Although, he was more than willing to involve them in the stunt in front of the store in the first place. The more I read about this guy, the more his situation is revealed. He is 26, lives at home, and has minor siblings. It's time for this guy to move out of mom and dads basement, grow up and become a man. I'm moving my vote to "Attention Whore" at this point.

[Occhidiangela]

I stopped shopping at Circuit City in the fall of 2004. Their customer service sucks ass, their selection and price likewise.

This guy was a maroon to shop at Circuit City in the first place, and Doc, you need to check yer meds. Octaroon was a racial classification in old South Africe based on blood mixture. Maroon as noted is a now common slang, thanks to Bugs Bunny adding it to the lexicon by deliberately screwing up moron. It also refers to some poor sumbitch left on an island by pirates.

As to putting up with substandard service, if I don't like what I get out of a clerk, I say no, or I immediately call for the namanger, NOW. I have had any number of interesting conversations on how badly his people are trained, and how well I can elucidate his shortcomings to corporate if he doesn't unscrew his people and his ass.

One such conversation is why I no longer spend any of my money, ever, at Circuit City. Likewise, Taco Bell, anywhere in the country.

There is always someone decent enough at customer service to bring my custom to. Fail to teach your people the basics, and my dollars go elsewhere, and along the way I might ruin your, and your precious little slacker scumbag employee's day if I have a case of the ass on.

As the warden in Cool Hand Luke used to say:

I can be a real nice guy, or a real sumbitch.

Funny thing is, I am a big tipper if you get it right.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I can be a real nice guy, or a real sumbitch.

Occhi, you are a natural born world-shaker.

[Occhidiangela]

Occhi, you are a natural born world-shaker.

That's what she said, if "the earth moved for me" and "world shaker" are close enough to be the same. :lol:

Occhi