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

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: thepd7
Of course you should show them your receipt, it's so easy. Also, your should give the FBI permission to tap your phone because hell, if they ever have to go through the court and all that it's SO MUCH HASSLE. Go ahead and have them bug your house while you are at it, if you aren't doing anything wrong what does it matter? Don't be a dick and make people actually respect your rights, that's for bitches.



Yes I know they aren't the same but it IS the same principle. I do show my receipt at Fry's because it doesn't bother me to give up that part of my rights, but I sure as hell am not going to chastize someone for not wanting to do the same. That's just plain stupid.

I'm a rabid fire-breathing champion of civil rights, and I just wanted to let you know that personal attack deleted .

1) No you're not

2) Just as in the tiger direct thread, you are spouting off complete bullshit in terms of the law. Stop pretending you're an authority on the subject when it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

You know, when i saw this thread, i thought to myself, 'i bet that personal attack deleted is going to come charging in here and start bullshitting about how cops and CC have the right to do this and that based on whatever fairy tale law you dreamt up' Boy you sure have a way of proving us right Vic!

Really? How much you want to bet the subject of this whole discussion, Michael Righi, loses each and every legal action that he presses? Name it. Or shut up. Hell, I'll even throw down that the ACLU won't even come near him, much less defend him.

personal attack deleted are undermining civil rights with your adolescent angst. You don't like a store's policy, don't fscking shop there. Don't compare having to show proof-of-purchase before leaving the store's private property as being analogous to the FBI wiretapping your own private property, and certainly don't call me a personal attack deleted while you're defending such ridiculous logic.

I never compared to store's policy's to FBI wiretaps. I just read your 'civil rights' post and i bust out laughing because that is the OPPOSITE of what you are. Next time you invite someone over to your house, try detaining them and asking to search their person without probable cause before you allow them to leave. See if you don't get sued into outer space for kidnapping. Again, read the posts above you: YOU ARE A MORON <1> OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. If you don't know what the law is, SHUT THE HELL UP. The more you bullshit about what you THINK the law is, the more of an idiot<2> you look. I can only imagine if you were a law student, you'd probably be that idiot <3> in the class that has to inject your own personal opinion of how the laws should work based on your own ideological stance every chance you get rather than how laws actually work in our country. But seriously, thanks for wasting everyone's time with your retarded <4> 10 year old idealism.

Throughout most of the thread, once I got on a roll deleting personal attacks, I continued, regardless of how minor they were, with only a PM to each person noting so. However, this post stepped over my line of tolerance. Bolding a personal attack is pretty stupid. -Anandtech Moderator DrPizza

 

[cherrytwist]

I hate shopping at stores with this policy.

That being said, I find it acceptable at Costco and Sam's because it's part of their membership policy. I was aware of the policy prior to membership so I live with the receipt check.

In regards to other stores with a "receipt check" policy. There is a simple fix.

DON'T SHOP THERE

I do 99% of my shopping for media/entertainment/electronics/etc online.

This is the best way to send the message to the big box stores that you don't like their policy. Don't spend your $$$ in their store.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: cherrytwist
I hate shopping at stores with this policy.

That being said, I find it acceptable at Costco and Sam's because it's part of their membership policy. I was aware of the policy prior to membership so I live with the receipt check.

In regards to other stores with a "receipt check" policy. There is a simple fix.

DON'T SHOP THERE

I do 99% of my shopping for media/entertainment/electronics/etc online.

This is the best way to send the message to the big box stores that you don't like their policy. Don't spend your $$$ in their store.

That goes both ways, don't like that customers have rights then don't sell your shit here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: thepd7
Of course you should show them your receipt, it's so easy. Also, your should give the FBI permission to tap your phone because hell, if they ever have to go through the court and all that it's SO MUCH HASSLE. Go ahead and have them bug your house while you are at it, if you aren't doing anything wrong what does it matter? Don't be a dick and make people actually respect your rights, that's for bitches.



Yes I know they aren't the same but it IS the same principle. I do show my receipt at Fry's because it doesn't bother me to give up that part of my rights, but I sure as hell am not going to chastize someone for not wanting to do the same. That's just plain stupid.

I'm a rabid fire-breathing champion of civil rights, and I just wanted to let you know that personal attack deleted .

1) No you're not

2) Just as in the tiger direct thread, you are spouting off complete bullshit in terms of the law. Stop pretending you're an authority on the subject when it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

You know, when i saw this thread, i thought to myself, 'i bet that personal attack deleted is going to come charging in here and start bullshitting about how cops and CC have the right to do this and that based on whatever fairy tale law you dreamt up' Boy you sure have a way of proving us right Vic!

Really? How much you want to bet the subject of this whole discussion, Michael Righi, loses each and every legal action that he presses? Name it. Or shut up. Hell, I'll even throw down that the ACLU won't even come near him, much less defend him.

personal attack deleted are undermining civil rights with your adolescent angst. You don't like a store's policy, don't fscking shop there. Don't compare having to show proof-of-purchase before leaving the store's private property as being analogous to the FBI wiretapping your own private property, and certainly don't call me a personal attack deleted while you're defending such ridiculous logic.

I never compared to store's policy's to FBI wiretaps. I just read your 'civil rights' post and i bust out laughing because that is the OPPOSITE of what you are. Next time you invite someone over to your house, try detaining them and asking to search their person without probable cause before you allow them to leave. See if you don't get sued into outer space for kidnapping. Again, read the posts above you: YOU ARE A MORON OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. If you don't know what the law is, SHUT THE HELL UP. The more you bullshit about what you THINK the law is, the more of an idiot you look. I can only imagine if you were a law student, you'd probably be that idiot in the class that has to inject your own personal opinion of how the laws should work based on your own ideological stance every chance you get rather than how laws actually work in our country. But seriously, thanks for wasting everyone's time with your retarded 10 year old idealism.
brief vacation for this post - Anandtech Moderator DrPizza

Uhh... they're not searching anyone's person, O Emotional Ad-Hom One (accusing me of idealism no less! 😛 ), they're checking receipts aka proof-of-purchase. Suppose I sold something to someone over Craigslist, and they came to my house to pick it up, I could legally insist on a receipt for the transaction (or no sale) just as the buyer could do the same. Or suppose I let my wife handle the transaction, I could request proof that the matter was in order prior to the buyer leaving my property (or no sale). That's what we're talking about here. Not your outrageous idealistic interpretation.

BTW, I proposed a wager. Put up or shut up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: cherrytwist
I hate shopping at stores with this policy.

That being said, I find it acceptable at Costco and Sam's because it's part of their membership policy. I was aware of the policy prior to membership so I live with the receipt check.

In regards to other stores with a "receipt check" policy. There is a simple fix.

DON'T SHOP THERE

I do 99% of my shopping for media/entertainment/electronics/etc online.

This is the best way to send the message to the big box stores that you don't like their policy. Don't spend your $$$ in their store.

That goes both ways, don't like that customers have rights then don't sell your shit here.

These rights you imagine you have don't exist. Or do think that the moderation of this message board is a violation of your rights?

 

[smack Down]

nested personal attacks deleted

No you can't because the sale was already completed the person has your goods and your wife has the person money. The transaction has been completed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
These rights you imagine you have don't exist.

Every customer should be arrested and booked.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: cherrytwist
I hate shopping at stores with this policy.

That being said, I find it acceptable at Costco and Sam's because it's part of their membership policy. I was aware of the policy prior to membership so I live with the receipt check.

In regards to other stores with a "receipt check" policy. There is a simple fix.

DON'T SHOP THERE

I do 99% of my shopping for media/entertainment/electronics/etc online.

This is the best way to send the message to the big box stores that you don't like their policy. Don't spend your $$$ in their store.

That goes both ways, don't like that customers have rights then don't sell your shit here.

These rights you imagine you have don't exist. Or do think that the moderation of this message board is a violation of your rights?

So your saving it is not a violation of a person rights to lock them in a cell as long as the cell is owned by CC?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: cherrytwist
I hate shopping at stores with this policy.

That being said, I find it acceptable at Costco and Sam's because it's part of their membership policy. I was aware of the policy prior to membership so I live with the receipt check.

In regards to other stores with a "receipt check" policy. There is a simple fix.

DON'T SHOP THERE

I do 99% of my shopping for media/entertainment/electronics/etc online.

This is the best way to send the message to the big box stores that you don't like their policy. Don't spend your $$$ in their store.

That goes both ways, don't like that customers have rights then don't sell your shit here.

These rights you imagine you have don't exist. Or do think that the moderation of this message board is a violation of your rights?

So your saving it is not a violation of a person rights to lock them in a cell as long as the cell is owned by CC?

The Spelling/Grammar-Nazi in me is exploding. :Q

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: thepd7
Of course you should show them your receipt, it's so easy. Also, your should give the FBI permission to tap your phone because hell, if they ever have to go through the court and all that it's SO MUCH HASSLE. Go ahead and have them bug your house while you are at it, if you aren't doing anything wrong what does it matter? Don't be a dick and make people actually respect your rights, that's for bitches.



Yes I know they aren't the same but it IS the same principle. I do show my receipt at Fry's because it doesn't bother me to give up that part of my rights, but I sure as hell am not going to chastize someone for not wanting to do the same. That's just plain stupid.

I'm a rabid fire-breathing champion of civil rights, and I just wanted to let you know that personal attack deleted .

1) No you're not

2) Just as in the tiger direct thread, you are spouting off complete bullshit in terms of the law. Stop pretending you're an authority on the subject when it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

You know, when i saw this thread, i thought to myself, 'i bet that personal attack deleted is going to come charging in here and start bullshitting about how cops and CC have the right to do this and that based on whatever fairy tale law you dreamt up' Boy you sure have a way of proving us right Vic!

Really? How much you want to bet the subject of this whole discussion, Michael Righi, loses each and every legal action that he presses? Name it. Or shut up. Hell, I'll even throw down that the ACLU won't even come near him, much less defend him.

personal attack deleted are undermining civil rights with your adolescent angst. You don't like a store's policy, don't fscking shop there. Don't compare having to show proof-of-purchase before leaving the store's private property as being analogous to the FBI wiretapping your own private property, and certainly don't call me a personal attack deleted while you're defending such ridiculous logic.

I never compared to store's policy's to FBI wiretaps. I just read your 'civil rights' post and i bust out laughing because that is the OPPOSITE of what you are. Next time you invite someone over to your house, try detaining them and asking to search their person without probable cause before you allow them to leave. See if you don't get sued into outer space for kidnapping. Again, read the posts above you: YOU ARE A MORON OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. If you don't know what the law is, SHUT THE HELL UP. The more you bullshit about what you THINK the law is, the more of an idiot you look. I can only imagine if you were a law student, you'd probably be that idiot in the class that has to inject your own personal opinion of how the laws should work based on your own ideological stance every chance you get rather than how laws actually work in our country. But seriously, thanks for wasting everyone's time with your retarded 10 year old idealism.
brief vacation for this post - Anandtech Moderator DrPizza

Uhh... they're not searching anyone's person, O Emotional Ad-Hom One (accusing me of idealism no less! 😛 ), they're checking receipts aka proof-of-purchase. Suppose I sold something to someone over Craigslist, and they came to my house to pick it up, I could legally insist on a receipt for the transaction (or no sale) just as the buyer could do the same. Or suppose I let my wife handle the transaction, I could request proof that the matter was in order prior to the buyer leaving my property (or no sale). That's what we're talking about here. Not your outrageous idealistic interpretation.

BTW, I proposed a wager. Put up or shut up.

The situations aren't even remotely similar. You aren't forcibly detaining the buyer if he refuses your demand.

Nobody has said that receipt checks are illegal. What is illegal is attempting to compel the receipt check with physical force or detention.

 

[Agentbolt]

Nobody has said that receipt checks are illegal. What is illegal is attempting to compel the receipt check with physical force or detention.

Correct. This discussion works best when we're all on the same page. Some people are arguing over nothing because one or both people don't know what they're talking about. Trust me, I know 😱

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: cherrytwist
I hate shopping at stores with this policy.

That being said, I find it acceptable at Costco and Sam's because it's part of their membership policy. I was aware of the policy prior to membership so I live with the receipt check.

In regards to other stores with a "receipt check" policy. There is a simple fix.

DON'T SHOP THERE

I do 99% of my shopping for media/entertainment/electronics/etc online.

This is the best way to send the message to the big box stores that you don't like their policy. Don't spend your $$$ in their store.

That goes both ways, don't like that customers have rights then don't sell your shit here.

These rights you imagine you have don't exist. Or do think that the moderation of this message board is a violation of your rights?

So your saving it is not a violation of a person rights to lock them in a cell as long as the cell is owned by CC?

The Spelling/Grammar-Nazi in me is exploding. :Q

hey that should go good with your good old totalitarian Nazism.

 

[Fraggable]

Maybe to keep the whole slippery slope thing from happening, and to keep from being arrested, we should - when asked to check the receipt - demand of the receipt-checker and manager that I will show the receipt if they acknowledge I am not required to do so.

That way they learn if they didn't already know, that you're not required to, but you don't put yourself in a hostile situation where the cops are necessary.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Vic
These rights you imagine you have don't exist. Or do think that the moderation of this message board is a violation of your rights?

You tried this in the last thread you are making a horrible comparison.

The reason you can walk out of a store without showing someone a receipt is because you now legally own the items in the bag. At what point of us registering in here and posting things do the forums become our property?

The comparison is more like a retailer telling us that we can take a hike if we get out of control in their store, and I would fully expect them to do that. In YOUR comparison, you act like the moderators have the privledge of reading our email just because we registered here, which is asinine.

 

[imported_Imp]

Here we go again... and again... and again... We all love our "rights".

Whatever. Next time they ask me for a receipt, I will show them without hesitation and take satisfaction in sticking it to the employee/security guard when they find out I payed for my stuff and they screwed up.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down
I think the 4th would apply to the rent a cop asking a for a receipt. The 4th protects against wrongful arrest, and the rent a cop would be acting on behalf of the state is when arresting a person.

Again, I'm speaking only of the case where the store notifies the customer prior to purchase that they must show their receipt and allow their bag to be checked as a condition of the sale. I don't know if that is the case here, but I'm speaking more in generalities than about this specific incident. How can a search be unreasonable if you consent to it? If you don't consent to the search, you don't make the purchase.

If CC had some signage stating this, then it would be a different story. This particular CC doesn't so it is a moot point.

Actually, it still doesn't matter if there is a sign. A sign is not a legal means of releasing people from their rights and is not legally binding. It's like dumptrucks with signs that say "Not responsible for objects falling from this truck"... Like hell they aren't. They just put it there because 90% of people who get their windsheilds cracked will just curse the driver and pay for it themselves, saving the truck company lots of money. Another fine example is EULAs... even clicking "Accept" to software does not give the software company the right to bypass laws. It just doesn't work that way.

What happens if a blind customer walks in to the store and can't see the magical sign that strips allows the store to break laws? (Don't question HOW he makes purcahses and stuff, it's merely an example)... Should he still be alienated from his rights? Even stores that have membership agreements that say you must show your receipt can't stop you... they can cancel your membership and ban you from their store, but they can't stop you.

Bottom line is that the majority of rights and laws that a citizen has are 100% inalienable and cannot be taken away from you no matter what contract you sign, what sign you walk past or what button you click.

So I can consent to a search by a police officer when he has no legal basis for searching my belongings, but I cannot consent to a search by a private entity? Hmmm....

You can consent to whatever you want. If you give someone permission to search you that's all fine, well, and good, but that's your choice. Not even a police officer can search you without a warrant or probable cause, without your consent and merely refusing to show a receipt is not reason enough to believe that someone stole something. Simply putting a sign up that says "all bags will be searched" doesn't re-write the law on the spot to give the stores the right to search someone. They are more than welcome to call the cops or ban the person from the store, but no matter how you slice it unless criminal activity was witnessed, there is no reason to believe that someone is stealing something.


Like I said in my first post here, I think it's stupid that they escalated it that much, but I gotta stick up for the fact that they did NOTHING illegal. Personal opinion is not law.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: thepd7
Of course you should show them your receipt, it's so easy. Also, your should give the FBI permission to tap your phone because hell, if they ever have to go through the court and all that it's SO MUCH HASSLE. Go ahead and have them bug your house while you are at it, if you aren't doing anything wrong what does it matter? Don't be a dick and make people actually respect your rights, that's for bitches.



Yes I know they aren't the same but it IS the same principle. I do show my receipt at Fry's because it doesn't bother me to give up that part of my rights, but I sure as hell am not going to chastize someone for not wanting to do the same. That's just plain stupid.

I'm a rabid fire-breathing champion of civil rights, and I just wanted to let you know that personal attack deleted
.

No you aren't, good try though.

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: cherrytwist
I hate shopping at stores with this policy.

That being said, I find it acceptable at Costco and Sam's because it's part of their membership policy. I was aware of the policy prior to membership so I live with the receipt check.

In regards to other stores with a "receipt check" policy. There is a simple fix.

DON'T SHOP THERE

I do 99% of my shopping for media/entertainment/electronics/etc online.

This is the best way to send the message to the big box stores that you don't like their policy. Don't spend your $$$ in their store.

That goes both ways, don't like that customers have rights then don't sell your shit here.

These rights you imagine you have don't exist. Or do think that the moderation of this message board is a violation of your rights?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


If you know how to read, you will see that in this thread we have stated that
1. You do not sign an agreement allowing them to check your receipt (like we signed an agreement to join AT forums)
2. The rights do exist, read above. You might not be familiar, it's called the Constitution of the United States of America, amendment 4.

 

[Agentbolt]

2. The rights do exist, read above. You might not be familiar, it's called the Constitution of the United States of America, amendment 4.

Nnnghfaaaaaaaa my brain just exploded. You are like the 165 billionth person to say that. For the last time, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOESN'T APPLY TO PRIVATE CITIZENS. Seriously, I am going to cry with how many people are chiming in here screaming about their fourth amendment rights being violated.

The amendment applies only to governmental actors; it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations.[1] More specifically, the Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the federal government, but the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision. For an example, see Article 1, § 7 of the Tennessee Constitution

REPEAT: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE CITIZENS. It's still illegal for them to detain you, but only because they private citizens who don't have the right to detain ANYBODY (except in very, very specific situations.)

thepd7, everyone else who even thinks about mentioning "fourth amendment", please, for the love of God, listen: You don't know what you're talking about. Stop poking your head in these threads confidently proclaiming these things when you are absolutely completely dead wrong. You're making it harder for the rest of us to make our point that the person shouldn't have been detained by CC.

 

[Triumph]

Drop your pants, AgentBolt, I want to search you. After all, I'm a private citizen so it's ok.

 

[Steve]

Now that's hot!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Drop your pants, AgentBolt, I want to search you. After all, I'm a private citizen so it's ok.

Yeah.... ok. Here in the REAL world I can think of two examples of the 4th amendment not applying to private entities off the top of my head.
1. Many employers require you to consent to a drug test before employment and anytime they choose while you are employed.
2. Warehouse clubs require you to consent to having your purchases searched when you exit.

 

[Agentbolt]

Drop your pants, AgentBolt, I want to search you. After all, I'm a private citizen so it's ok.

Huh? What? 😕 I....I'm speechless. Dude, what part of

It's still illegal for them to detain you, but only because they private citizens who don't have the right to detain ANYBODY (except in very, very specific situations.)

didn't make it through? Was it because I didn't specifically write out "search" as well? Was it using the contraction "it's" instead of "it is"? The commas? Where did I lose you. I only ask because this is a concept that is so far beyond simple it is just in a land where any functional human being should be able to understand it.

A private citizen can't detain you, or search you, or anything. Not because of the fourth amendment, but because they're a private citizen. If you need this made clearer... I'm sorry, I'm out of ideas on how to simplify this.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

2. The rights do exist, read above. You might not be familiar, it's called the Constitution of the United States of America, amendment 4.

Nnnghfaaaaaaaa my brain just exploded. You are like the 165 billionth person to say that. For the last time, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOESN'T APPLY TO PRIVATE CITIZENS. Seriously, I am going to cry with how many people are chiming in here screaming about their fourth amendment rights being violated.

The amendment applies only to governmental actors; it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations.[1] More specifically, the Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the federal government, but the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision. For an example, see Article 1, § 7 of the Tennessee Constitution

REPEAT: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE CITIZENS. It's still illegal for them to detain you, but only because they private citizens who don't have the right to detain ANYBODY (except in very, very specific situations.)

thepd7, everyone else who even thinks about mentioning "fourth amendment", please, for the love of God, listen: You don't know what you're talking about. Stop poking your head in these threads confidently proclaiming these things when you are absolutely completely dead wrong. You're making it harder for the rest of us to make our point that the person shouldn't have been detained by CC.

Whether or not the CC person violated the 4th is up for debate. I think a good argument can be made for anyone doing a citizens arrest is a governmental actor and there for governed by the 4th. Of course it is a moot point because states have enacted laws to such an effect anyways.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Triumph
Drop your pants, AgentBolt, I want to search you. After all, I'm a private citizen so it's ok.

Yeah.... ok. Here in the REAL world I can think of two examples of the 4th amendment not applying to private entities off the top of my head.
1. Many employers require you to consent to a drug test before employment and anytime they choose while you are employed.
2. Warehouse clubs require you to consent to having your purchases searched when you exit.

nether of those have anything to do with the 4th. As you said the people consented and their for waved any rights.

 

[Agentbolt]

Whether or not the CC person violated the 4th is up for debate. I think a good argument can be made for anyone doing a citizens arrest is a governmental actor and there for governed by the 4th

The CC person wasn't making a citizen's arrest. He had no right to do so. He was absolutely, completely wrong to detain the shopper, that's why the shopper called the real cops. Therefore, he wasn't acting as a government agent. Therefore he didn't break the fourth amendment. End of story. This is not rocket science.