RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out...

RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 1:29:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I would imagine that CC does have the right to demand to inspect customers bags, yet the only ability to enforce would be to refuse future service and have the person charged with tresspassing if they entered the Store. The USSC cases cited implied that if Ohio requires an ID as part of identifying them selves to an officer, its ok. whether this is the case is not yet clear, and may be up to the Ohio Courts. Even if the man was in the right and called the cop, he still has to comply with the offier. The person who calls does not automatically not get charged, if they also "obstruct official bussiness". That's pretty much what the link on page one about store security says. The stores have the right to ask, you have the right to refuse, the stores have the right to refuse service, or make a citizens arrest, you have the right to claim false arrest, they have the right to pull out the videtape...[:D] And of course, the states have the right to make statutes allowing or forbidding the police to compel compliance with a variety of actions.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 5:13:05 PM)
INS v Delgado is not the holding case. So rather than being an atty or professor or whatever you claimed earlier, what you actually are is a flogger of dead horses? Good to know... INS v Delgado was not decided under the rules of a Terry Stop. In INS v Delgado the court basically ruled that people were free to leave without answering INS questions which means that the court is claiming (preposterously, in my view) that people effectively volunteered information about themselves and so the information was therefore usable in proceedings against them. I understand the case; I also disagree with the holding - it was a case decided to uphold the actions of the state. That's why you ought to ask "May I go?" when being questioned - it basically decides whether you are volunteering information or being held under the Fourth Amendment and therefore ought to remain substantially silent if you don't like the atmosphere of the questioning. But you also have to pick and choose your battles. Maybe you want very eagerly to help the police for some reason. The confrontation doesn't have to be a negative experience. Maybe it's best to weigh whether the cop is looking for information or seeking a reasonable patsy to pin the wrap on. Hiibel tells us we must at minimum comply with statutory requirements to identify ourselves - but no more than that. Hiibel does not require that one produce documents to prove who one is. And, of course, I understand and disagree with this holding also. I prefer Miranda where you have the right to remain silent. "The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=384&page=436 Anyway, all of this was already asked and answered before - so you bring no new information. Just the same tired assertion... quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado The stores have the right to ask, you have the right to refuse... Yes, that's exactly right. quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado ...the stores have the right to refuse service... No, they don't. A wall of civil rights laws says they have very little wiggle room there. They certainly could not refuse service because someone had previously refused to waive their rights under the law. That would be absurd. quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado ...or make a citizens arrest, you have the right to claim false arrest... Yes, that's exactly right. quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado ...they have the right to pull out the videtape... And? What? Start calculating the money they will lose in the lawsuit against them for false arrest? Is anyone supposed to be guilty under any scenario we have discussed in this thread? We have continually discussed people that were being needlessly harassed for no reason whatever. Off point again, Alumbrado. quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado And of course, the states have the right to make statutes allowing or forbidding the police to compel compliance with a variety of actions. And that may or may not be upheld by the SCOTUS. Rights have to be actively asserted or the courts often claim that you waived your right voluntarily. That's exactly what INS v Delgado teaches one.

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 5:35:10 PM)
Reading all of the posts who say "If you don't have something to hide then you should have no problem with the search" really, really makes me shudder. I simply can't believe people don't understand why this is such a horrible view. Fine - it's only a receipt at the the door of a store. But it is STILL an invasion of your privacy and one that goes against your civil liberties. What if the same store asked to search your purse or briefcase or backpack before you left? Would that still be ok? You argue that they are a private store and can set up whatever rules they like, and you are correct, but you are under no obligation to follow those rules. If you were to go to someone's house for dinner and before they allowed you to leave they demanded that they search your belongings, would you be offended? Would you allow them? If not, why? Why would you give a corporation more control? If the RIAA or MPAA or any other corporate acronym knocked on your door and said "Hey, we want to examine your computer just to make sure you don't have any illegal music or movies, would you let them? Why not, you don't have anything to hide, right? Ah, because it is your personal home, maybe. Well, your bag and person are your personal property. So where do YOU draw the line? So, if you allow them to search you or your bag then yes, you are a sheep. You prefer 'convenience' and 'security' (rather, the illusion thereof) to your rights. And that is just sad. Personally, I don't show them my receipt. The one time someone made an issue out of it, I turned around, went to the returns counter, and returned about $400 worth of merchandise and made sure they knew why. The manager apologized and said that they would train the door checker and I replied that they shouldn't have them there anyways. We are currently suffering the beginnings of a death of liberty by a 1000 cuts. And it seems many of you have no problem showing a little more skin to the razor.

farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 5:36:27 PM)
quote: We are currently suffering the beginnings of a death of liberty by a 1000 cuts. And it seems many of you have no problem showing a little more skin to the razor. Beginning? I'd disagree, and suggest we're way closer to the end.

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 5:39:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: We are currently suffering the beginnings of a death of liberty by a 1000 cuts. And it seems many of you have no problem showing a little more skin to the razor. Beginning? I'd disagree, and suggest we're way closer to the end. I know, I know, just trying to be an optimist. Thanks for bringing me down, man.

Cuckme4Life -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 7:15:23 AM)
This is not about something to hide or not. This is about a door checker going overboard because someone didnt care to be treated in a certain way and that was his prerogative not to be treated like a suspect. I dont care to have my stuff checked either and usually ignore any requests to do so. If I have an unbagged large item I feel differently about the situation.

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 7:31:30 AM)
I think my biggest problems with the whole receipt thing are: 1) The person is standing RIGHT there, they watch you check out, they may even watch you all the way to the door and there is no product for you to grab between the checkout and the door, and they still want to see your receipt. Why? Which leads to.... 2) The primary purpose of door checks is NOT to catch shoplifters, it is to stop internally caused loss/theft through the cashier giving their buddies discounts or failing to ring up items. That's it. So, they are hassling you, someone who just gave them your patronage, to keep tabs on their own employees. And I'm just not willing to give up my rights, no matter how miniscule some of you believe those rights to be - to allow a store to police their own people. The whole ID thing is a completely different issue. I think the laws are nebulous and I would really like to see something either way definitevely say whether or not you need to present some sort of ID rather than stating your name. Which is scary if they do require it, because I know there are many times when I go out jogging or something and I don't carry an ID. So could they throw me in jail for not carrying my papers?

ISODaddy4BBW -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 7:37:19 AM)
It may be a silly thing to have to do but seriously, what does it hurt? Its not like they want your SSN, or a credit report, or a strip search or anything.... Looks like to me this guy decided ahead of time to just be a complete ass and is now sitting back raking in the profits. His total legal fees for this will probably be less than a third of what he gets "dontated" because of the over abundance of stick in ass people running around. So yes, pet the hero and pad his pocket, but I ask you who is worse. The person who asks to see your reciept or the person who uses a civil rights excuse to extort money from people who cant see a scam when its written in black and white?

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 7:50:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ISODaddy4BBW It may be a silly thing to have to do but seriously, what does it hurt? Its not like they want your SSN, or a credit report, or a strip search or anything.... Looks like to me this guy decided ahead of time to just be a complete ass and is now sitting back raking in the profits. His total legal fees for this will probably be less than a third of what he gets "dontated" because of the over abundance of stick in ass people running around. So yes, pet the hero and pad his pocket, but I ask you who is worse. The person who asks to see your reciept or the person who uses a civil rights excuse to extort money from people who cant see a scam when its written in black and white? You are right, what does it hurt? So, the next time you go to Circuit City, if they ask to see your purse, you won't have any problems with that, right? What does it hurt? And I doubt this is a scam - pretty easy to figure out since you can easily go and check the public records for the arrest and all that. But hey, if you feel not sticking up for your civil rights is ok, then go for it. I mean, Rosa Parks was just a pushy broad and could easily have gone to the back of the bus, right? It's no big deal, what would it hurt?

farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 8:17:06 AM)
Seconded!

Sinergy -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 8:23:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia I mean, Rosa Parks was just a pushy broad and could easily have gone to the back of the bus, right? It's no big deal, what would it hurt? One of the writers in Rolling Stone proposed her birthday as a national holiday in honor of all the mavericks who buck the system for the common good. Seconded! Sinergy

camille65 -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 8:23:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia I think my biggest problems with the whole receipt thing are: 1) The person is standing RIGHT there, they watch you check out, they may even watch you all the way to the door and there is no product for you to grab between the checkout and the door, and they still want to see your receipt. Why? Which leads to.... 2) The primary purpose of door checks is NOT to catch shoplifters, it is to stop internally caused loss/theft through the cashier giving their buddies discounts or failing to ring up items. That's it. So, they are hassling you, someone who just gave them your patronage, to keep tabs on their own employees. And I'm just not willing to give up my rights, no matter how miniscule some of you believe those rights to be - to allow a store to police their own people. The whole ID thing is a completely different issue. I think the laws are nebulous and I would really like to see something either way definitevely say whether or not you need to present some sort of ID rather than stating your name. Which is scary if they do require it, because I know there are many times when I go out jogging or something and I don't carry an ID. So could they throw me in jail for not carrying my papers? Bingo!

Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 8:49:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado ...the stores have the right to refuse service... No, they don't. A wall of civil rights laws says they have very little wiggle room there. They certainly could not refuse service because someone had previously refused to waive their rights under the law. That would be absurd. quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado ...they have the right to pull out the videtape... And? What? Start calculating the money they will lose in the lawsuit against them for false arrest? Sorry, in the real world, in America, the business has every right to produce a videotape of you stealing or commiting other crimes on their property, have a trespass order issued, and refuse to allow you back on their property for service. And producing that videotape in court is no more 'false arrest' than the man in the moon. Please stop embarrassing yourself with this woo-woo approach to legal words and cases. Claiming that they mean the exact opposite of what they do mean is literally ridiculous. quote: SugarMyChurro: ... Rights have to be actively asserted or the courts often claim that you waived your right voluntarily. That's exactly what INS v Delgado teaches one. Actually, the USSC has long held that rights cannot be waived through omission, but must be competently and intelligently waived, or they automatically stand as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction. You know, what they said in Johnson v Zerbst? OK, for a while I thought that maybe you knew better than the nonsense you were spouting, and just enjoyed arguing circles around reality. At this point I'll go with the evidence at hand that you are simply unable to bring reality to bear in any meaningful discussion, at which point it becomes obviously fruitless to keep providing you with the facts, and rude and pointless of me to keep ridiculing you.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 10:37:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Sorry, in the real world, in America, the business has every right to produce a videotape of you stealing or commiting other crimes on their property, have a trespass order issued, and refuse to allow you back on their property for service. And producing that videotape in court is no more 'false arrest' than the man in the moon. Yeah, you are off point because no one is discussing that scenario. No one is talking about this issue in the context of actually having shoplifted or commited a crime. We are discussing the harassment of people a store hasn't a single bit of evidence against. People like you and me, that just want to conduct our business and then get the fuck out. quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Actually, the USSC has long held that rights cannot be waived through omission, but must be competently and intelligently waived, or they automatically stand as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction. Gee, really? Then explain INS v Delgado, because I bet those people thought they were under a kind of 4th Amendment seizure and the court claims they volunteered the info. Sheep get made into mutton and sweaters. Stop talking nonsense.

luckydog1 -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 12:17:47 PM)
Sugar you may be right, I am not arguing that I am here. But the SCOTUS did say in Hibbel(or am I confusing the cases you cited I don't feel like going back through all 11 pages this morning), that the state law did not require that ID be shown so he didn't have to, which implies that if the state law did require it, it would be fine. We saw one Ohio statute here, but that does not mean that the act of "identifying ones self" is not defined as showing proof in a different Ohio law or Ohio court ruling. We don't know (I don't know and no one has cited anything in reference to it) if there is something else in Ohio law that would define what "identifying themsleves" entails. The cited Ohio statue does not say "verbally state" your name. Generally, I do think you are right on this topic Sugar.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 3:39:57 PM)
Links to the original story because I find them interesting: http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/ http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/05/papers-please-arrested-at-circuit-city-followup-1/ http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29 Quoted law from the above: "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." quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 But the SCOTUS did say in Hibbel...that the state law did not require that ID be shown so he didn't have to, which implies that if the state law did require it, it would be fine. It might be fine. Such laws have been written and ruled unconstitutionally vague. See also: Post #: 71 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1251398 and Post #: 138 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1253505 quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 We don't know (I don't know and no one has cited anything in reference to it) if there is something else in Ohio law that would define what "identifying themsleves" entails. The cited Ohio statue does not say "verbally state" your name. I don't have the easy means to research that. We need someone with ready access to an Ohio law library, Westlaw, LexisNexis, or the like... What I personally found interesting here: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29 was the requirement that this line of questioning occur in relation to a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects the commission of a crime. The trigger for the statute is that a crime did or is about to take place. If there is no crime, there is no need to identify oneself pursuant to the statute. Now I write this recognizing that the police and state allow trumped up charges for everything from taking a jog to just standing there "loitering." It gets pretty ridiculous...

Petronius -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/9/2007 5:04:24 PM)
Looking over the long discussion led me to one observation I consider rather chilling. Some people may consider their rights trivial but in so doing claim that my rights are trivial as well. If they're willing to waive their rights they want to waive my rights as well, and seem quite incredulous that I might disagree.

Cuckme4Life -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/10/2007 8:27:05 AM)
quote: I mean, Rosa Parks was just a pushy broad and could easily have gone to the back of the bus, right? It's no big deal, what would it hurt? GRAND SLAM ARGO!!!!! Rosa shoulda went on back of that bus!! What would it hurt? No big deal indeed.

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/10/2007 8:45:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Petronius Looking over the long discussion led me to one observation I consider rather chilling. Some people may consider their rights trivial but in so doing claim that my rights are trivial as well. If they're willing to waive their rights they want to waive my rights as well, and seem quite incredulous that I might disagree. Excellent, and chilling, observation. I wonder what the reaction would be if people suddenly started saying "we don't feel it is right to tie people up for kinky sex purposes and therefore we are going to pass laws to stop it." There might be a whole bunch of folks that said "You know, that's true. I mean, we are just trying to protect people. It isn't really that big a deal, right? I have no problem with not tying up my partner."

camille65 -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/10/2007 9:09:13 AM)
I can't help but wonder why. Why are there so many apathetic attitudes towards this? Le sigh. Bit by bit it is taken away. That scares me & saddens me. How can you not care? Mind boggling.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02