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

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 9:08:12 AM)
Alumbrado: Those are unique instances. We are talking during a Terry Stop here. You are off point once again...

SimplyMichael -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 9:22:55 AM)
Thompsonx, She is one glorious woman, ain't she? quote: Yeah, it IS the small things that show TRUE character Obis. I agree with you on this and that is what I try to teach my children. So, you want to see my receipt? Yeah, here ya go. People don't need to be assholes to make a difference or effect change. They need to be leaders. I know what I aspire to be, do you?

Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 9:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Alumbrado: Those are unique instances. We are talking during a Terry Stop here. You are off point once again... BS, we are talking anywhere in the US... And BTW, a Terry stop is a weapons pat down for officer safety... not showing ID. You are floundering badly the more terms you Google and misuse.

farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 10:25:35 AM)
Yes, but in THIS CASE, it is NOT PERMITTED by law. Of course, absent any Law REQUIRING you to carry Papers, the requirement to PRODUCE the papers you don't need to carry is pretty pointless.

Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 10:58:06 AM)
I pointed out that in this case it was not permitted by one state's statute (which gives citizens more protection than the Constitution requires)... And I answered the question as to whether any US citizen could ever legally be compelled to show ID, by referring to cases where it has been ruled to be constitutional elsewhere. You two are the ones repeatedly claiming that I am wrong, and arguing against those specific points with derails, strawmen, and other debate tactics. Another one of your 'fantastic' creations.

farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 11:32:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado I pointed out that in this case it was not permitted by one state's statute (which gives citizens more protection than the Constitution requires)... Ok. Thanks for the contribution. quote: And I answered the question as to whether any US citizen could ever legally be compelled to show ID, by referring to cases where it has been ruled to be constitutional elsewhere. I don't believe that question was ever asked. A similar but different question was asked, however. quote: You two are the ones repeatedly claiming that I am wrong, and arguing against those specific points with derails, strawmen, and other debate tactics. Actually, I was initially confused by what appeared to be some strange tangent. I believe I understand the source of the confusion. You misread the original question, answered WHAT YOU THOUGHT TO BE THE QUESTION, ( probably correctly ), and when that was pointed out, ( your response being out of context to the incident discussion ) it seemed as if you didn't then understand the issue...

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 1:01:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado BS, we are talking anywhere in the US... And BTW, a Terry stop is a weapons pat down for officer safety... not showing ID. You are floundering badly the more terms you Google and misuse. Good christ...! Hiibel - a case you cited and that I do believe is on point - states that it is being decided in the context of a Terry Stop: "The petitioner was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself during a stop allowed by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968)." It's relevant here in the context of "stop and identify." But Hiibel doesn't reach the point where it states a requirement to show I.D. - as I believe you continue to insist because it further says this: "As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means--a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make--the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206-1207." I don't know what to say here, Alumbrado. This is the case that you cited. I agree that it is on point. But it doesn't reach the conclusion that you insist it reaches. It isn't my fault nor is there any reason you should make these silly personal attacks. I am sorry if you feel you look the fool but the case you cited as stating a requirement to show I.D. does not state any such thing - anyone that reads English can see that it does not. Other cases involving other circumstances are not relevant here. We are discussing what is required by statute or case law in the context of a Terry Stop and how it stacks up Constitutionally. That's it - not whatever circumstances you pull out of your ass.

luckydog1 -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 1:21:25 PM)
Hmm, Sugar appears to be right, at least has posted the most convincing quote so far. But this is an interesting thread. Does identifying ones self to an office require giving some proof that you are not lying. It would seem to be in the intrest of a criminal to simply give a false name and address, and probably not a good loophole to have. Sugar's quote has the justices refering back to state law, implying that if a state wanted to it could require proof of identification. Does Ohio state law define what constitutes identifying ones self? Perhaps it will fall on the court to decide. To the OP it seems to me that a store can set its own policies. Regardless of certain peoples opinions on ALE's, they do have rights and are legal under US law, and the actuall laws and court rulings mean far more than nayones personall opinion. Does Circuit City post a sign saying all bags are subject to search? I haven't been to a CC for years, but bet they do. That is the policy at Costco, where I regularly shop, and I think comparing it to the Holocoust, Rachell Corrine, or 911 is utter nonsense, and really quite offensive. It seems pretty reasonable when a cop gets called to a silly event such as this he wants to see ID's all around. As far as Miranda goes, don't believe what they show on TV. There is no incantation that must be stated when arresting someone. There are rights they have to inform you off before you are questioned about the details of a crime, or your words are not admissable in court as evidence against you. The Cop said show me your ID, the guy said something like "Hell no you facist pig corpratist Nazi, I have fucking rights!!!!". So the Cop arrested him, Miranda has no bearing at all here, his arrest has nothiong to do with questioning, but refusing to comply.. Stores absolutly have the right to refuse service to anyone they want, except for a few speciffically defined reasons (race ethnicity, creed, ect civil rights reasons). Refusal to accept store policy is totally acceptable I would imagine. Interesting case, It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 1:47:28 PM)
Here is why this thread and the case being suggested by the original article (a blog entry) is interesting... The guy was asked to show a receipt and the contents of a store bag, the contents of which he had just obviously purchased. He refused to comply. Instead of letting him go, the store employees made it impossible for the guy to leave the parking lot. In effect, they wrongly held him. Letting him go was the only reasonable thing to do because there was simply no evidence - either by the standard of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion - that he had done anything wrong. This part is pretty well decided. The store has liability here for doing things beyond the scope of what is reasonable under the circumstances. This is the part that annoys all you "good consumers" - but the best part follows. As he was being held at the store parking lot and not allowed to leave, the guy calls 911 and the police show up. Instead of properly investigating the wrongful detention, the police officer immediately sides with the store and starts investigating the guy that refuses to be searched. The guy identifies himself verbally by name, but the cop insists on seeing I.D. - which the guy refuses as he is not at the moment of being asked inside his vehicle. According to the Terry Stop standard, the cop is allowed to ask all kinds of fool things by way of investigating his crime, but the citizen is not necessarily compelled to answer anything beyond a name and some contact info (sometimes there are specific statutory requirements). Basically, it's a near perfect situation in which to test any presumption that a citizen must show a policeman I.D. This is important because it is one of the only ways we have continued to distinguish ourselves from abusive governments of the past where citizens were required to show their papers to anyone in authority who demanded them.

kittensmailbox -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 2:03:36 PM)
Ok the other day at work, I polled a ton of ppl, black, white, Jews, Christians Arabic, rich and poor and they all said the same thing… If they had nothing to hide, they would have no problem showing their receipt or ID…

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 2:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittensmailbox Ok the other day at work, I polled a ton of ppl, black, white, Jews, Christians Arabic, rich and poor and they all said the same thing… If they had nothing to hide, they would have no problem showing their receipt or ID… Sheep.

SleepyBeast -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 2:48:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittensmailbox Ok the other day at work, I polled a ton of ppl, black, white, Jews, Christians Arabic, rich and poor and they all said the same thing… If they had nothing to hide, they would have no problem showing their receipt or ID… Ok, since those people choose not to exercise their rights that should not stop someone else from exercising theirs.

kittensmailbox -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 2:53:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyBeast quote: ORIGINAL: kittensmailbox Ok the other day at work, I polled a ton of ppl, black, white, Jews, Christians Arabic, rich and poor and they all said the same thing… If they had nothing to hide, they would have no problem showing their receipt or ID… Ok, since those people choose not to exercise their rights that should not stop someone else from exercising theirs. ok, i give up... i just think that *SOME* of you are making a big deal out of nothing..... So how many of you are sending this guy money for his huge case???

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 3:00:14 PM)
it never bothered me showing my receipt til reading all this....now i am gonna rage against the machine......demand my rights.... or ill smile at the sweet receipt checker lady and say hows ya day going so far? and hand her the receipt..... but im doing one of them things!!! you can bet on it, and ill do it with passion... heh

Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 3:36:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado BS, we are talking anywhere in the US... And BTW, a Terry stop is a weapons pat down for officer safety... not showing ID. You are floundering badly the more terms you Google and misuse. Good christ...! Hiibel - a case you cited and that I do believe is on point - states that it is being decided in the context of a Terry Stop: "The petitioner was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself during a stop allowed by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968)." It's relevant here in the context of "stop and identify." But Hiibel doesn't reach the point where it states a requirement to show I.D. - as I believe you continue to insist because it further says this: "As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means--a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make--the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206-1207." I don't know what to say here, Alumbrado. This is the case that you cited. I agree that it is on point. But it doesn't reach the conclusion that you insist it reaches. It isn't my fault nor is there any reason you should make these silly personal attacks. I am sorry if you feel you look the fool but the case you cited as stating a requirement to show I.D. does not state any such thing - anyone that reads English can see that it does not. Other cases involving other circumstances are not relevant here. We are discussing what is required by statute or case law in the context of a Terry Stop and how it stacks up Constitutionally. That's it - not whatever circumstances you pull out of your ass. What in the world do you imagine yourself to be accomplishing by repeatedly stating the opposite of what is factually correct? Do you think that reality will change itself just because you make things up and repeat that they are true? Curious Lord asked "Is it or is it not illegal to refuse showing an officer an ID in such a situation? I would appreciate a reputable citing. " The correct answer to that question is that it is legal under certain circumstances (no matter how badly you want it to be otherwise). Hiibel and the INS case it cites are two examples of the US Supreme Court ruling that self identifications are not automatically unconstitutional. Your specific response to my assertion that it is sometimes constitutional for the police to demand ID ("> Any claim that no one can be arrested anywhere in the USA for refusing to show identification to the police is mistaken." ), has been to decalare that "So all of these assertions that you MUST show ID are currently false." If you were correct on that one premise, why the need to flip flop from saying that Hiibel will be reversed soon, to saying that Hiibel doesn't allow police to demand ID? Why grasp at some pretty bizzare straws, and dredge up some wild sidesteps about legal terms which you clearly don't understand, and supply made up definitions for (then claim that ridiculing those made up and erroneous definitions is somehow a 'personal attack'), before ending up with the irrational claim that "Hiibel - a case you cited and that I do believe is on point - states that it is being decided in the context of a Terry Stop:"? Stay in that fantasy world if you want, some of us prefer to learn the facts and employ them correctly.

farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 4:50:57 PM)
quote: Does Circuit City post a sign saying all bags are subject to search? Even if Circuit City does post a sign, if there is no Law permitting that search, than that search remains wholly voluntary. The idea of "Shopkeepers Privilege" is just fine. It's conditioned on "Probable Cause", which is a great standard. In this instance, the standard of "Probable Cause" never was met, therefore Circuit City is likely to find themselves with considerable liability. This is why they bought an "Errors and Omissions" policy.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 5:45:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Curious Lord asked "Is it or is it not illegal to refuse showing an officer an ID in such a situation? I would appreciate a reputable citing." And you have answered a broader unasked question in response to his more limited question. Brilliant! See where he says "in such a situation" clearly referencing the approx. particulars of the article that began this thread? In what way should I give ground to your opinion over that of the ACLU, whose documents I have also linked to? Yeah, I guess they have no legal authority and have no idea how to read cases for their simple meanings. Why should I approve your obviously wrong interpretation over the plainly stated language of the legal case you yourself named as holding? Whereas you claimed to provide the link, I actually did cite the case with a link to Findlaw and further readings from Wiki (which BTW, also disagrees with you). I quoted the exactly relevant passages here in thread for all to see, read and understand. Many seem to be able to do so - except yourself. It's strange to me how you insist on embarrassing yourself by being so obviously wrong.

LadySeraphina -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 6:09:48 PM)
I'll admit, I skimmed, but here's my thought: I don't live in the US, nor do I have any knowledge of the pertinent laws. I do know that I am personally offended when I have been asked to check a large purse when shopping, or when I am asked for a receipt when I have just been through the till. I also dislike when I walk into a store beeping (such as the other day when I walked into a bookstore after going to Rogers and buying a DS which was left magnified) and make sure an employee sees that I was beeping when I came in, and then I'm stopped on the way out when I beep. Just because I'm personally offended doesn't mean I won't comply. I worked in retail, and I know how little the employees are being paid, yet what flack they take for not ensuring loss prevention. As to cops, I've never actually met the assholes people always talk about. All the cops I've met have been nice, if overworked, so if they asked for ID, I'm just going to give it to them. They ought to be able to spend their time on more important things than my standing on principle. Like catching the guy who raped a girl down my street. JMO.

KruelMistressK -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 7:24:29 PM)
Keeping in mind that a retail store posting something doesn't make it the law of the land.

dcnovice -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/4/2007 8:14:06 PM)
quote: When was the last time you stopped on the side walk to pick up a single piece of trash and put it in the trash, or did you simply choose to walk right by? Yesterday, actually.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875