Customer gets Arrested...Failure to show reciept to Store Employees

[Agentbolt]

edit: BTW, what did the officer arrest the guy for? Hint: it wasn't for not showing his receipt.

OH MY GOD. They arrested him for not showing his driver's license. I said that FOUR POSTS ABOVE WHEN YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. I REFERENCED THE QUOTE FOUR POSTS AGO WHERE I SAY WHAT HE WAS ARRESTED FOR.

Are you 5? Can you read? How simple do I need to make this!

You STILL have no explained how the officer was justified in arresting the guy, you went off on some insane tangent about people slipping on floors. Explain how the cop was right to make an arrest or admit you were wrong, or just shut up and learn to read.

 

[Number1]

The guy is an idiot. The only people that are going to benefit from this are the lawyers.


Is anybody a lawyer in this thread?

Complete waste of time for everybody as far as I am concerned.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

edit: BTW, what did the officer arrest the guy for? Hint: it wasn't for not showing his receipt.

OH MY GOD. They arrested him for not showing his driver's license. I said that FOUR POSTS ABOVE WHEN YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. I REFERENCED THE QUOTE FOUR POSTS AGO WHERE I SAY WHAT HE WAS ARRESTED FOR.

Are you 5? Can you read? How simple do I need to make this!

You STILL have no explained how the officer was justified in arresting the guy, you went off on some insane tangent about people slipping on floors. Explain how the cop was right to make an arrest or admit you were wrong, or just shut up and learn to read.

It was a leading question, because you keep saying that even though that's not what he got arrested for, but was part of the incident which lead to his arrest.

He got arrested for Obstruction.

Are you 5? Can you read? How simple do I need to make this!

Why would the person who called the police refuse to cooperate with the police when they arrived?

C'mon, man, even McOwen figured this one out.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

He was making a citizen arrest it just happened to be illegal. Whether it is illegal because it is in violation of the 4th or because the state enacted a law making it illegal following the guidelines of the 4th isn't know and most likely never will be.

No. What? I'm close to giving up on you people. The "citizen's arrest" wasn't illegal because it violated the fourth, it was illegal because private citizens don't have the right to arrest people unless.

A) a misdemeanor amounting to a public nuisance is committed in the arresting citizen's presence; or

B) a felony has been committed, and the arresting citizen has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it.

Neither a misdemeanor amounting to a public nuisance or a felony ever occurred. The CC guy never had reasonable cause to think one had occurred. It was never a citizen's arrest. It was a private citizen stopping another private citizen from leaving, i.e. unlawful detainment or kidnapping. That's all.

Your example is the same as if I got caught wiretapping your phone and you accused me of not getting a warrant first. I can't wiretap your phone in the first place. I'm not a police officer or agent of the state.

Just stop. You're so wrong, smackdown. Seriously.

My claim is that no matter what laws are in place in the state of Ohio, a person could sue another person for violating his 4th amendement rights. You have done nothing to show that is wrong.

 

[Agentbolt]

It was a leading question, because you keep saying that even though that's not what he got arrested for, but was part of the incident which lead to his arrest.

He got arrested for Obstruction.

Nope, you're done. You've lost all rights to speak intelligently in this thread. "Obstruction" can only occur if the person being arrested either does something to hinder the police, or refuses to comply with reasonable demands from the police in the pursuit of his duty.

Despite your screaming and wailing that the guy was being a dick by refusing to show his license (debateable) he is not under any obligation to show his license. He's not. I've cited the cases and the statutes. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO SHOW HIS LICENSE. It could only be obstruction if the cop is allowed to demand a license instead of simply demanding the person identify himself, and guess what genius, the cop isn't allowed to do that.

You can't just say "It's obstruction! Because I said so!" Neither can the cop. WHY is it obstruction? Because he refused to show his license? He's under no obligation to do so. What'd the guy do to obstruct justice. NOTHING.

The cop can be pissed all he wants that he was called to the scene and didn't like how the guy acted. That doesn't make it obstruction because he didn't do everything the cop asked. That'd be like charging him with obstruction if the cop wanted to do a cavity search right there on the spot and the guy refused. The cop had no right to do a cavity search and he had no right to demand a drivers license instead of simply identifying info.

I'm done arguing with you. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you're a cop apologist and think the guy should've done everything the cop asked (despite being under no legal obligation to do so) doesn't make it true. Find me a statute that demands a citizen supply a driver's license when asked, or a statute that says someone calling the police has to comply with everything the cop says he should do, and I'll be happy to reply. In the meantime you've furnished nothing to dispute my point.

 

[Agentbolt]

My claim is that no matter what laws are in place in the state of Ohio, a person could sue another person for violating his 4th amendement rights. You have done nothing to show that is wrong.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, A FEDERAL DOCUMENT. IT ONLY APPLIES TO INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND THE GOVERNMENT. I mean, for God's sake, it's 3 pages back. It's not hard to find. A person cannot sue another person for violating their fourth amendment rights. Find me one case that went to court where a private person sued another private person for violating his fourth amdendment rights. Just one.

YOU CAN'T. Because there is no such case, because the fourth amendment is absolutely meaningless in regards to two private entities. It doesn't apply.

I give up. Most of you people are hopeless. If you ever find a time machine, set it to 4th grade and pay attention in social studies class this time.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

My claim is that no matter what laws are in place in the state of Ohio, a person could sue another person for violating his 4th amendement rights. You have done nothing to show that is wrong.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, A FEDERAL DOCUMENT. IT ONLY APPLIES TO INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND THE GOVERNMENT. I mean, for God's sake, it's 3 pages back. It's not hard to find. A person cannot sue another person for violating their fourth amendment rights. Find me one case that went to court where a private person sued another private person for violating his fourth amdendment rights. Just one.

YOU CAN'T. Because there is no such case, because the fourth amendment is absolutely meaningless in regards to two private entities. It doesn't apply.

I give up. Most of you people are hopeless. If you ever find a time machine, set it to 4th grade and pay attention in social studies class this time.

The 4th amendement never mentions the federal government.

The reason there will be no case suing a person under the 4th is that all states have laws that restrict the actions of a private citizen to greater lengths then the 4th.

 

[Agentbolt]

The 4th amendement never mentions the federal government.

The reason there will be no case suing a person under the 4th is that all states have laws that restrict the actions of a private citizen to greater lengths then the 4th.

Annnnd YOU'RE DONE

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."

Seriously, shut up. You lose. You're wrong. You're very, very, very wrong. Stop.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

He was making a citizen arrest it just happened to be illegal. Whether it is illegal because it is in violation of the 4th or because the state enacted a law making it illegal following the guidelines of the 4th isn't know and most likely never will be.

No. What? I'm close to giving up on you people. The "citizen's arrest" wasn't illegal because it violated the fourth, it was illegal because private citizens don't have the right to arrest people unless.

A) a misdemeanor amounting to a public nuisance is committed in the arresting citizen's presence; or

B) a felony has been committed, and the arresting citizen has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it.

Neither a misdemeanor amounting to a public nuisance or a felony ever occurred. The CC guy never had reasonable cause to think one had occurred. It was never a citizen's arrest. It was a private citizen stopping another private citizen from leaving, i.e. unlawful detainment or kidnapping. That's all.

Your example is the same as if I got caught wiretapping your phone and you accused me of not getting a warrant first. I can't wiretap your phone in the first place. I'm not a police officer or agent of the state.

Just stop. You're so wrong, smackdown. Seriously.

My claim is that no matter what laws are in place in the state of Ohio, a person could sue another person for violating his 4th amendement rights. You have done nothing to show that is wrong.

Even the ACLU disagrees with you. Give it up.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

edit: BTW, what did the officer arrest the guy for? Hint: it wasn't for not showing his receipt.

OH MY GOD. They arrested him for not showing his driver's license. I said that FOUR POSTS ABOVE WHEN YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. I REFERENCED THE QUOTE FOUR POSTS AGO WHERE I SAY WHAT HE WAS ARRESTED FOR.

Are you 5? Can you read? How simple do I need to make this!

You STILL have no explained how the officer was justified in arresting the guy, you went off on some insane tangent about people slipping on floors. Explain how the cop was right to make an arrest or admit you were wrong, or just shut up and learn to read.

Note - you're assuming that everything that this guy wrote in his blog is 100% accurate and true. Officially, he was arrested for:

ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)
(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official?s official capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official?s lawful duties.

So, was he really arrested for not showing a driver's license? Who knows. Unless, he has witnesses to the discussion in the police car. It's the cop word against his.

 

[Agentbolt]

Of course I'm assuming he was telling the truth. That's a pretty desperate last gasp. "Well.... maybe he was lying about the whole thing then!" Maybe the cop was lying. Maybe none of it ever happened. Maybe Britney Spear's boobs are fake. That's all irrelevant. We're talking about the information we have at hand.

Nobody's brought up the lame "Well who knows if this guy is even telling the truth!" excuse until after I've poked enough holes into the "The cop was right to arrest him if he won't show his license" argument to turn it into swiss cheese.

 

[Vic]

LOL! Me, a "cop apologist"!! That's rich. I wonder what some of the real cops that I've argued with on this forum (like Fallen Hero) would say if they knew I was called that. 😀


Sigh... I guess I'm just disgusted by these incredibly phony displays of civil disobedience that have become the recent rage. Throwing a temper tantrum in public and and whining on your blog after the fact about how much you're gonna sue isn't what Thoreau had in mind.


edit: Oh BTW, Agentbolt, I wasn't screaming and wailing (that was you posting in all caps, remember?) and I specifically said that not showing his license isn't why he got arrested. You clearly don't understand "Obstruction." Cops are like monsters, in a way. You can't call one up thinking it will help you and then expect it to just go away if things doesn't work out the way you expected.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: dugweb
The only reason I tend to side with the customer on this issue is mainly because of the attitude of everyone else.

You certainly don't keep rights by rolling over at every request to give them up.

Um, you seem to have forgotten that the business has rights too.

See, you're looking at it from your own persepctive...........the little guy. Consider if you ever owned your own company.....a store let's say.....and a couple punk kids come inside and start skate boarding in your store and exercising their free speach to shout obnoxious things at other shoppers. I think you might exercise your rights and refuse service to them and insist they leave your property. You see, businesses need right too.....not just you. Got it? Cool? Alright then.

You think they are doing it just to oppress you? They're gonna employe 1-2 people full time to stand there all day and check just for kicks? Nope, it's because it reduces theft and keeps prices lower........which is why low price leaders like Fry's and Costco were earlier adopters. So when you have to shuffle step for half a second....long enough for some teenager to swipe your receipt with a highlighter, consider it a 5% discount on your purchase.

And, as always, if you don't like it, you are free to shop other places that don't require it. With low margins on competitive prices, shrinkage from theft can play a role in making or breaking a store, so enjoy them while they last.

 

[Agentbolt]

You clearly don't understand "Obstruction." Cops are like monsters, in a way. You can't call one up thinking it will help you and then expect it to just go away if things doesn't work out the way you expected

I clearly defined obstruction. I also asked you to explain what exactly the person did that constituted obstruction. It clearly wasn't refusing to show his license, as he is completely free to do that if he wishes. The cop has no right to demand a driver's license. I've proven that.

And yeah, I'm yelling. It's disgusting to see how many armchair lawyers are in here complaining about private citizens violating other private citizen's fourth amendment rights, or how the cop was completely justified in arresting the guy.

I'll ask one more time. In small words, since apparently you didn't get it the first time. What did the customer do that constituted the obstruction charge? You can't say "he refused to show his license when the cop asked" because the cop had no right to ask in the first place.

Me: ?I?m required by law to state that my name is Michael Righi, but I do not have to provide you with my driver?s license since I am not operating a vehicle.?
Officer Arroyo: ?Give me your driver?s license or I will place you under arrest.?
Me: ?My name is Michael Righi. I am not willing to provide you with my driver?s license.?
Officer Arroyo: ?Turn around and up against the wall.?

"Give me your driver's license or I will put you under arrest" Explain that, boy wonder. Please. I'm eager to hear how the man's refusal to comply with a demand the cop had no right to make constitutes "obstruction". Feel free to use the pathetic "well maybe something happened we don't know about" excuse someone else used earlier.

The "obstruction" charge states that no one can do "any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official?s lawful duties." Demanding a license doesn't fall under that umbrella because the cop had no right to ask for it. The cop did not attempt to arrest the man until immediately AFTER he refused to provid his driver's license. You lose. You're wrong.


Put up or shut up.

 

[Vic]

I've already said several times. He stopped cooperating with the police that he called to the scene in the first place. And I never said the cop was "completely justified" or anything to that effect, and don't tell me to "put up or shut up" when you haven't accepted my offer of a wager (along with everyone else). What I did say is that your own "armchair lawyer" opinion that the "cop had no right to ask in the first place" won't hold up in a real life court, and I stand by that.
Sorry if you're all butt hurt from that, but I'm done with you.

 

[Agentbolt]

And I never said the cop was "completely justified" or anything to that effect

You said the cop wasn't wrong to arrest him.

What I have said (other than the above clarification of the US Constitution for the benefit of the schoolchildren here), is that this individual involved could have easily avoided the whole incident, and that the police officer involved was not in the wrong in his own actions.

Pretty impressive, denying something you said literally earlier today. I wonder if you can type that with a straight face, or if you have to grimace a bit at your own hipocrisy.

The cop was wrong to arrest him. I've proven he was. You've failed yet again to give any evidence for any of your arguments. If you want to stomp off the debate floor now because you were completely, utterly unable to support your argument, feel free. Refusing to cooperate after calling a cop (after the cop made an unreasonable demand when he showed up) isn't obstruction and you've said nothing to indicate it was.

The difference between my "I'm done with you" and yours was I said it after I stated facts, statutes, and evidence to prove my point of view. You're doing it after having a hissy fit that I won't take you up on some ridiculous bet that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Between going back on your own statements and showing an unbelievable ignorance in how the law works, you've embarassed yourself pretty handily today, my friend. Congrats.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

And I never said the cop was "completely justified" or anything to that effect

You said the cop wasn't wrong to arrest him.

What I have said (other than the above clarification of the US Constitution for the benefit of the schoolchildren here), is that this individual involved could have easily avoided the whole incident, and that the police officer involved was not in the wrong in his own actions.

Pretty impressive, denying something you said literally earlier today. I wonder if you can type that with a straight face, or if you have to grimace a bit at your own hipocrisy.

The cop was wrong to arrest him. I've proven he was. You've failed yet again to give any evidence for any of your arguments. If you want to stomp off the debate floor now because you were completely, utterly unable to support your argument, feel free. Refusing to cooperate after calling a cop (after the cop made an unreasonable demand when he showed up) isn't obstruction and you've said nothing to indicate it was.

The difference between my "I'm done with you" and yours was I said it after I stated facts, statutes, and evidence to prove my point of view. You're doing it after having a hissy fit that I won't take you up on some ridiculous bet that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Between going back on your own statements and showing an unbelievable ignorance in how the law works, you've embarassed yourself pretty handily today, my friend. Congrats.

Wrong and right really don't have much to do with it being legal or not. There's plenty of things that a lot of people consider wrong that are legal, and there's things that people wouldn't consider wrong that are illegal.

By this time you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Was it wrong for the cop to arrest him? I doubt it (and that without knowing the exact facts). Was it illegal? It will likely be proven so, based on the information we have.

 

[Capt Caveman]

If this story was being told from a reputable news source, it may be worth fighting about. Being from somebody's blog, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

 

[Agentbolt]

Was it wrong for the cop to arrest him? I doubt it (and that without knowing the exact facts). Was it illegal? It will likely be proven so, based on the information we have.

I don't know about Vic, but I'm arguing the legality of it. I could care less whether it's "wrong" or "right" because those can't be proven. They're subjective, out of 100 people you'd probably find 50 who say it was wrong and 50 who say it was right, and none of them would be either correct or incorrect in thinking so. It was an illegal arrest, based on the information we have. That's not debateable. In that sense, the cop was "wrong".

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

edit: BTW, what did the officer arrest the guy for? Hint: it wasn't for not showing his receipt.

OH MY GOD. They arrested him for not showing his driver's license. I said that FOUR POSTS ABOVE WHEN YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. I REFERENCED THE QUOTE FOUR POSTS AGO WHERE I SAY WHAT HE WAS ARRESTED FOR.

Are you 5? Can you read? How simple do I need to make this!

You STILL have no explained how the officer was justified in arresting the guy, you went off on some insane tangent about people slipping on floors. Explain how the cop was right to make an arrest or admit you were wrong, or just shut up and learn to read.

It was a leading question, because you keep saying that even though that's not what he got arrested for, but was part of the incident which lead to his arrest.

He got arrested for Obstruction.

Are you 5? Can you read? How simple do I need to make this!

Why would the person who called the police refuse to cooperate with the police when they arrived?
C'mon, man, even McOwen figured this one out.

He complied to the letter of the law, cop thought he was making law. It really is that simple. Judge is going to interpret the law and have no emotional attachment unlike you do.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I went to Fry's today, where they check reciepts, and i asked the guy who was doing it... "What would happen if someone refuses to show their receipt?" He was like "Well theres nothing much we can do about it. Can't chase them down or anything."

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: piasabird
When a store is open it is public property. i.e. it is open to the public. The property is not public, but it is open to the public. They have an open sign on the front door. If this is a museum it is probably owned with public money, so it is public property. So stealing from the Museum is like stealing from the government.

I think this article points to a need for a national ID Card, and some federal laws about requiring to identify yourself when asked. This is just the attitude a terrrorist might use.

Some of the statutes about museum property may not apply to the giftstore, if they are meant to protect Museum Exhibits.

What the hell? 😕

I'm not even going to touch your post except to say that a business that is open to the public is not public property. The proper term is "place of public accommodation," and there are certain legal restrictions that apply to places of public accommodation (as opposed to private clubs), including in some places prohibitions against discriminating based on membership in a protected class.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
What the hell is wrong with some people? Showing a receipt is so simple. Why not just show it, then be on his merry way? I think some people just have one goal in mind, to start trouble.

You know who loves people like you? Fascists. That's not an exaggeration. Maybe if you don't believe in the principles of law and justice that this country was founded on, you should leave

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
What the hell is wrong with some people? Showing a receipt is so simple. Why not just show it, then be on his merry way? I think some people just have one goal in mind, to start trouble.

You know who loves people like you? Fascists. That's not an exaggeration. Maybe if you don't believe in the principles of law and justice that this country was founded on, you should leave

Yes it was. It was a huge exaggeration. There is a big difference between a private business and the government.

Edited to be nicer

 

[cherrytwist]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
What the hell is wrong with some people? Showing a receipt is so simple. Why not just show it, then be on his merry way? I think some people just have one goal in mind, to start trouble.

You know who loves people like you? Fascists. That's not an exaggeration. Maybe if you don't believe in the principles of law and justice that this country was founded on, you should leave

Yes it was. It was a huge exaggeration. There is a big difference between a private business and the government.

Edited to be nicer

🙂

If only everyone did this.