• 123 4 518
  • Page
  • Text Only
kdbrich said:    For those of us that are uninformed, why are you buying thousands of $$$$. Of gift cards?

Right now Citi is running a promo where for every $1000 in spending on a TYP card they will throw in a free H&B session.

The higher the spend the better the quality of H&B they offer.

I hear that if you hit $10K in spend they will throw in a hooker who has her full set of teeth and no chest hair.

I suspect OP was trying to hit that target. But of course he couldn't admit any of this to the cops.

I hope the mystery has been unraveled for you as to why the OP was buying so many cards.

Sonofspam said:   OP, unless you've had the full cavity search with a dirty Sanchez thrown in just to finish things off properly, you got of lucky.


And don't ask about the details of my story


That reminds me. I have to make a dentist appointment.

cows123 said:   Sonofspam said:   OP, unless you've had the full cavity search with a dirty Sanchez thrown in just to finish things off properly, you got of lucky.


And don't ask about the details of my story


That reminds me. I have to make a dentist appointment.


How about the colonoscopy appointment also?

DCBob said:   Walgreens filed a false police report. You can't possibly be "money laundering" unless you are the purchasing the gift or debit cards with cash. Drug dealers don't use credit cards unless they are stolen. I would definitely explain this in your complaint to Walgreens corporate HQ. And by the way, your "civil rights" were not denied - that's hogwash.
So when you call the police about a suspicious package when you see a guy leave his backpack behind at the curb after getting into a cab, and it turns out he just left his back pack on the curb when getting into a cab, you are now guilty of filing a false police report too?

Why are people reacting like the cops stopped OP with spike strips and took him down in the middle of the street at gunpoint?

newbietx said:   

How about the colonoscopy appointment also?



Just buy a free gift cards at Rite Aid. No appointment is necessary.

DCBob said:   Walgreens filed a false police report. Its highly unlikely that Walgreens filed a false police report.

They saw something suspicious, they called the policy and reported it - there is no evidence they lied to the police.
The police had the option of investigating it further or letting it go - they decided to investigate further and pulled OP over.
OP had the choice of talking to the police or providing ID and saying nothing else - he talked to the police.

Walgreens did nothing wrong.
Police did nothing wrong.
OP did nothing wrong.

I think OP did the right thing in talking to the police rather than saying nothing and escalating the situation. The police couldn't care less about his CC churn.

Anyone who can't wait to assert their rights or sue someone should rent a truck, buy a large amount of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and fuel oil, both perfectly legal, and see what happens next. Additional points awarded for making sure the fertilizer store employee sees the fuel oil in the truck as he helps you with your bag of fertilizer.

calwatch said:   kdbrich said:   sackland87 said:   I am a Citi TYP card holder and have been churning GCs since I got it. My normal "run" is 4 drug stores and one grocery store. I usually walk away with about 7K in GCs each run. This past Thursday however, went very different. Here is the series of events.
[...]



For those of us that are uninformed, why are you buying thousands of $$$$. Of gift cards?


Read for context.

Or just read SIS's posts in this thread. If you can't figure it out from there, just don't worry about it.

dbl118 said:   An interesting somewhat similar case
Characterizing that as being "somewhat similar" only helps perpetuate the problem. A patrol car stopping you in the middle of the day is a far cry from 7 unidentifiable guys jumping you in a dark parking lot. When privacy nuts lump it all together, they give the safety nuts no choice but to dig in to the opposite extreme. Yes, they're all nuts, because they're all hellbent on winning regardless of how ridiculous they end up looking in the process. If people would use a little reason and common sense, and drop the me-verses-the-world attitudes, 99% of everyone's concerns (on both sides) would disappear.

He said he had called the Secret Service to confirm my identity and that everything checked out.

Part of the story that nobody commented on...what information would they have provided vs. the cops just checking identity from the DMV.

http://www.secretservice.gov/investigative_support.shtml

I guess this answers it...

Glitch99 said:   When their limit is "1", how do you get a transaction right below their limit? My friend explained to me that if you bought several lower-denomination cards that wasn't horribly suspicious. If you tried to buy multiple higher-denomination ones that would be suspicious. If you inquired as to what the limit was that would be suspicious. Keep in mind I haven't received the training myself so this is all second-hand.

This is going to vary a great deal from cashier to cashier. Some are going to take the policy to mean that if they engage you in conversation and your story seems to check out that they'll drop it. Some are going to report every instance of suspicious behavior to their manager.

Someone else asked why it could be an indicator of money laundering if you bought them with your own credit card. When crafting a company-wide policy it's usually best to keep it as simple as possible. When you start adding exclusions and such it makes it that much less likely an employee will remember how the rule is supposed to work months after receiving the training.

codename47 said:   

I would be drafting a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit right now for violations of the 4th and 14th amendments. What exactly were you pulled over for? Buying a GC is not suspicious activity, nor is it criminal. They had no reason at all to pull you over, much less question you. Even if there were something suspicious, they had no reason at all to further detain you after the CC and ID were verified. At all. The detective's statement about stopping you because gift cards can be used for bad things is not PC or RAS.

I would immediately call the department involved, request whatever paperwork you need to file a formal complaint, and request all reports on the incident, audio and video of the incident if available, and all documents on the officers personnel files. I did this in a case I am pursuing now, and found out that the officer who pulled me over was an admitted drug user, never pulled anyone over for a DUI or had any interactions with anyone that was drunk (impeaches the "in my experience..."argument they may try to make saying they suspected I was a drunk driver", and the department has hired admitted drug dealers. Really great stuff pre-discovery. Actually, you probably want to request all the info first, get it in hand, then file the formal complaint.

Again, this pins them down to a story on what happened. I found all sorts of interesting stuff. The cop said he pulled me over for driving without my headlights on during the stop, but the police chief stated that I was pulled over for driving slowly on a busy highway, and the cop said in his response to my official complaint that he pulled me over because I swerved and crossed the median line. Asking them the same questions in a deposition under oath should be interesting..."were you lying then or are you lying now... officer, can you explain why the police chief disagreed with the reason you stated for why you pulled me over...Chief, can you explain how you determined the road was busy when no cars passed in either direction for 8 minutes..."

I wish I could be nice about this, but you are stupid for talking to the cops. Doubly stupid if you have a clearance and a job to lose. Go to flexyourrights.org and find out why or just watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCVa-bmEHuQ or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I_Btei6vKs

Is there anything I can do legally?
Yup, sue them. 42 USC 1983.

I'm not one to go around suing everyone,

Then don't complain and BOHICA. Sue them or sit back and enjoy getting your rights violated.

I have never even spoken to a lawyer (except to buy my house).

It may be helpful with a lawyer, but you really don't need one.

I feel very violated and embarrassed by the situation.
Apparently not that embarrassed or violated. I think you probably liked it, otherwise you would be ready and willing to sue them. Your definition of violated and embarrassed may differ from mine, but in the times that I have been harassed by cops, I was F'ing pissed.


A little background on myself. I have never been in trouble with the law. I am a military veteran and a current federal employee. I hold a secret clearance and get drug tested randomly.Had anything happened with the police, I could have been in jeopardy of losing my clearance, and therefore losing my job.
Again, these are things that that you don't value or really care about if you are willing to take this from the cops. You don't value your job, you don't value your security clearance. I would never, ever let this pass. As a veteran, you should be triply pissed because these guys are pissing on the grave of every person who died securing the country. I didn't stare down North Koreans on the DMZ to come back here and be harassed for buying a gift card.


I'm not a lawyer but I'm not at all clear that the police did anything wrong. The original officer informed him that the STORE told the police he was doing something suspicious, buying cards in large denominations which they presumably thought may have been for criminal purposes (we really don't know what Walgreens told the police, or what the police department told the officer). The officer pulled him over (something they are completely allowed to do), informed of why he was being pulled over. Established his identity, again, completely reasonable if you are driving a car on a public road. Since the OP felt he did nothing wrong, he VOLUNTEERED information about what he did. He then either volunteered to show the officer the credit card, or was asked to and complied with a request to show the credit card. The officer realizing this was above his paygrade detained him until the detective arrived and talked to him.

About the only thing I think is legally questionable in this entire interaction was detaining him for some period of time (10 minutes?) until the detective arrived. I'm not sure what 4th amendment violation he incurred. There is no evidence there was either an unlawful search or seizure. It sounds like the search (showing him the credit card) was voluntary and even then it was hardly intrusive. If the officer asked to see it, it was merely a plastic card with his name on it (which the officer already had), and the officer knew to be in his possession. Nothing was seized, and the OP did not mention his possessions (besides the driver's license, and the credit card) were searched.

As for the 14th amendment. The first part says: no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process (it's hard to understand how the police wanting to talk to you for 30 minutes couldn't be construed as loss of liberty -- stuff happens. Parts 2 and 3 are regarding representation and voting rights. Part 4 is about US debt. Did the police arrest him or threaten to arrest him? Like I said, MAYBE you could construe the delay waiting for the detective to arrive as unlawful loss of liberty, maybe.... But are the courts really going to give you any money for being detained unlawfully for 10 minutes?! If I were a judge, and I heard someone was suing over being detained for 10 minutes, my response would be: Really? How much of my time are you planning to waste with this suit?

I think the real villain here is Walgreens, and you should call Walgreen's Corporate and tell them you are a long time customer and they called the police on you over something that's legal and you've done before and you don't appreciate and you want to know what they want to do to make it right... Honestly, I don't think you'll get too much out of suing them but they may volunteer to give you something as a matter of goodwill.

sackland87 said:   If I am diabetic and buy hypodermic needles from Walgreens, are they going to call the cops because I might be a heroin addict?

Well, yes. Diabetics use insulin syringes (subcutaneous syringes), not hypodermic needles. Hypodermic would cause an insulin reaction and extreme hyperglycemia very quickly.

sackland87 said:   
I visit this particular Walgreens about 5 times a month and buy about $3000 in gift cards a month from there. Why wouldn't they say anything to me in person? Why do they make a store limit on gift cards if they are going to call the police even if you stay under the limit?

I have already called Walgreens and filed a complaint with their corporate office. They said I would hear back from them on Monday or Tuesday.

What should the employees have said to you? Excuse me sir, are you doing something illegal buying all of these gift cards?

The employees will probably get a reward for being observant and reporting potentially illegal activity. They may even thank you for calling corporate to report it.

JassieB said:   sackland87 said:   If I am diabetic and buy hypodermic needles from Walgreens, are they going to call the cops because I might be a heroin addict?

Well, yes. Diabetics use insulin syringes (subcutaneous syringes), not hypodermic needles. Hypodermic would cause an insulin reaction and extreme hyperglycemia very quickly.


Oh come on... You know what I meant. Sorry Im not up to speed on diabetes. It was the first thing that popped into my head.

Glitch99 said:   DCBob said:   Walgreens filed a false police report. You can't possibly be "money laundering" unless you are the purchasing the gift or debit cards with cash. Drug dealers don't use credit cards unless they are stolen. I would definitely explain this in your complaint to Walgreens corporate HQ. And by the way, your "civil rights" were not denied - that's hogwash.
So when you call the police about a suspicious package when you see a guy leave his backpack behind at the curb after getting into a cab, and it turns out he just left his back pack on the curb when getting into a cab, you are now guilty of filing a false police report too?

Why are people reacting like the cops stopped OP with spike strips and took him down in the middle of the street at gunpoint?


Your analogy of a backpack being left behind is way off, buying a gift/prepaid card with a valid credit card at a store that sells these everyday poses no imminent threat and is based upon, from the information at hand, nothing more than a store employee's perception. The store certainly has the option to verify the cardholder's signature. Any one can call the police for any reason, but when a corporate policy exists that prompts automatic calls to the police for buying a card, that's a problem, when the police act upon wild presumptions that's a bigger problem. Some people view this as no big deal, but in reality it's endemic of a much larger problem.

maddybeagle said:   He said he had called the Secret Service to confirm my identity and that everything checked out.

Part of the story that nobody commented on...what information would they have provided vs. the cops just checking identity from the DMV.
I'd imagine it's just a case of it being up to the secret service rather than the local police to make that decision. I know if I were that cop I'd be wondering why I was wasting time pulling this guy over to begin with and probably just let the secret service drive things since it's kind of their deal. Maybe they maintain some sort of database of people who buy gift cards and investigate after the same person's name comes up a few times?

Pure speculation on my part, but I'd imagine the SS gets tons of these phone calls every day with most of the "suspects" being privacy nuts who don't trust banks or other legitimate purchasers unaware of any limits. I'd imagine those who are actually laundering money would go into stores already aware of the checks and policies in place and aware of what it takes to stay under the radar. Making buddies with someone who works at a gas station (with grainy or non-existent security tape footage) who is willing to run a card through for you every shift would be a fairly easy way to accomplish this. If the spike in card sales draws attention to that gas station the employee can always make up a description of some fictional character who buys a card from him every day. I'm pretty sure someone capable of running a large enough illegal operation to have a need for these cards could come up with something far more clever. If it were Walter White I'm pretty sure he'd just win some more money at blackjack, buy a few gas stations, and acquire the gift cards a little more directly!

There are many here who seem to misunderstand their rights. The 4th Amendment protects you only from unreasonable governmental searches and seizures. In Terry, the Sup. Ct. authorized police to temporarily detain a citizen upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity being afoot -- for the reasonable amount of time necessary to investigate that suspicion. "Reasonable suspicion" arises when some acticulable fact or sets of facts/circumstances (i.e., more than a "hunch" or an anonymous tip) exists that would cause a reasonable officer to suspect a crime has occurred, is occurring, or may occur. While such a Terry stop is indeed a seizure, the limitations make it a reasonable one. Despite the misconceptions out there, there is no right to be "left alone" if not involved in criminal conduct.

These are the standards by which our law enforcement officers must apply their judgement daily in doing their jobs -- all at the risk of their jobs and personal liability for getting it wrong. Notably, one aspect of that job is to prevent crime, rather than just react and investigate crimes that have already occurred. I, for one, appreciate the difficulty they face and the real value to society they provide in doing so. We are not talking about bad actors here, no matter how you slice it. Good citizens recognize that they may have to be inconvenienced at times to allow LEOs to keep us safe and secure, and do not begrudge LEOs for the state of our society that requires it.

Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer and now-retired federal agent who has trained LEOs for over a decade on these issues.

Never talk to the police. End of story.

I find it sad whenever a thread like this starts on FW. It's always the same people taking the same positions, and nothing ever gets resolved. The people who love freedom will green this post, and the people who hate freedom will give me red. Those in the latter group clearly do not believe in Miranda rights or in the concept of being innocent until proven guilty in a [albeit, rigged and biased] court of law. I am discouraged when I think about the large number of Americans who fail to recognize that giving their fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt and resisting the urge to jump to conclusions represents the epitome of American idealism. The Bill of Rights was passed precisely to counteract the influence of people who don't believe in fairness and justice.

When I hear cable news anchors referring to "freedom fighters," I get confused about whether they're talking about people who are fighting for freedom or against it.

I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view. And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

stevick said:   
Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer and now-retired federal agent who has trained LEOs for over a decade on these issues.

since you have experience with this, did you become annoyed if a person seemed snarky/etc, answering only those ID/etc questions required by law and nothing else ?

If someone did not answer your other questions and started to question you with "Am I being detained ? Am I under arrest ?", is it so out of the ordinary that by itself it raises your suspicions ?

LOOPHOLE said:   but when a corporate policy exists that prompts automatic calls to the police for buying a card, that's a problem
Now you are just making things up....

Glitch99 said:   LOOPHOLE said:   but when a corporate policy exists that prompts automatic calls to the police for buying a card, that's a problem
Now you are just making things up....


It has been stated or alluded to that this may have been a result of corporate policy. I did indicate that I was basing my statement on "the information at hand".

DTASFAB said:   I find it sad whenever a thread like this starts on FW. It's always the same people taking the same positions, and nothing ever gets resolved. The people who love freedom will green this post, and the people who hate freedom will give me red. ... I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view. And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

Its a discussion on Fatwallet... Nothing will ever be resolved.

Nice Billy Joel reference.

Call Walgreens and ask to settle this for a case of Big Flats.

I guess I will jump in here for one post...

I am generally on the side of protecting our rights and I understande where Codename47 is coming from. I believe everyone in the USA should be a member of the NRA even if they never plan to own a gun, just to protect that right. I support the ACLU financially, even though I personally hate some of the things they fund. etc.

However, I think the way this played out is not to far from what I would expect. A complaint was filed by an overly "observant" clerk, the police followed up on it, and OP was let go with no arrest.

It was not a situation like in 1930's Germany where a suspicion caused an arrest with no cause.

I would agree with Glitch that in some cases, you just have to move on. Keeping this alive by pursuing it will probably not affect anyone's civil rights positively, and may serve to negatively impact the OP.

SteveG

My field work did not involve Terry stops. That being said, I've trained thousands for which it did. Annoyance is a perfectly human reaction by anyone who is frustrated in their good faith efforts to do their job, and LEOs are no different than anyone else in having such reactions. It is , however, everyone's right - sadly enough - to be snarky, and an LEO must respect it (though would normally try reason and "honey" to obtain what they need). BTW, some states have statutes criminalizing a refusal to ID oneself when asked by an LEO (many do not). The Sup.Ct. has held such statutes are constitutional. In the absence of such a state statute (there is no federal statute), citizens have every right to refuse to even identify themselves.(Note: if you are engaged in certain activities like driving a car, hunting, CCW, etc., the law will require you to produce the required identifying licenses.)

Because I hope you now appreciate the vagueness of the standard, it is difficult to say exactly what would give an officer the suspicion necessary to detain without knowing all the facts and circumstances. However, your questions are perfectly appropriate and certainly could not alone give rise to "reasonable suspicion" necessary to detain. In fact, an officer may never rely on a citizen's assertion of their constitutional right to form reasonable suspicion or probable cause (e.g., remaining silent, refusing consent, etc.)

stevick said:   There are many here who seem to misunderstand their rights. The 4th Amendment protects you only from unreasonable governmental searches and seizures. In Terry, the Sup. Ct. authorized police to temporarily detain a citizen upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity being afoot -- for the reasonable amount of time necessary to investigate that suspicion. "Reasonable suspicion" arises when some acticulable fact or sets of facts/circumstances (i.e., more than a "hunch" or an anonymous tip) exists that would cause a reasonable officer to suspect a crime has occurred, is occurring, or may occur. While such a Terry stop is indeed a seizure, the limitations make it a reasonable one. Despite the misconceptions out there, there is no right to be "left alone" if not involved in criminal conduct.

These are the standards by which our law enforcement officers must apply their judgement daily in doing their jobs -- all at the risk of their jobs and personal liability for getting it wrong. Notably, one aspect of that job is to prevent crime, rather than just react and investigate crimes that have already occurred. I, for one, appreciate the difficulty they face and the real value to society they provide in doing so. We are not talking about bad actors here, no matter how you slice it. Good citizens recognize that they may have to be inconvenienced at times to allow LEOs to keep us safe and secure, and do not begrudge LEOs for the state of our society that requires it.

Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer and now-retired federal agent who has trained LEOs for over a decade on these issues.


While the OP spilled his guts, presumably voluntarily, he was under no obligation to do so. I would assert that the "state of our society" as you put it, makes no such requirement upon our citizens to be "inconvenienced at times".

I will say that if that damn receipt checker standing at the door at WalMart tries to stop me as I walk on past, I wouldnt hesitate calling the police to report myself as being held hostage. But that's just because sometimes its fun to be an ass....

codename47 said:   Get a couple of those thrown at you, and the police chief will probably say hey guys, you know what...the next time you get a call for someone buying something at Walgreens, if there isn't a murder involved, let it go.This demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding as to how civil rights litigation works in this country. It doesn't matter what the cop did... all the other cops are going to close ranks and support him 110% no matter what. What you wouldn't know is that getting sued like this is a badge of honor for a lot of these cops... and often leads to promotion. I had a cop get caught lying on the stand in a major felony case where the defendant was looking at 20 years... the cop was promoted to Lieutenant within the year. One of the cops on the Rodney King tape as a trainee officer is now a LAPD Division Commander. The LA Times had an article yesterday about how the city auditors are livid at the LAPD for refusing to learn anything from all these tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits. That's just the reality.

stevick said:   In fact, an officer may never rely on a citizen's assertion of their constitutional right to form reasonable suspicion or probable cause (e.g., remaining silent, refusing consent, etc.)

Not exactly true.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warr...

According to a recent ruling by the supreme court, you can't just stay silent, you have to inform them that you are exercising your right to remain silent.

OP was unquestionably under no obligation to cooperate, and must be commended for doing so. His assistance not only resolved the instant concern, but educated the officers on how best to respond to future complaints - a good thing.

The "state of our society" as I alluded to, was merely reference to the existence and persistence of crime. I believe it naive to think the police can alone deal with it, without at least some cooperation by citizens. Moreover, the "inconveniences" are not limited to being stopped on occasion, but extends to having to respond to subpoenas and testify on occasion. I hope we all agree that these "inconveniences" are the small price we must pay for the safety and security we desire. I do agree, however, that reasonable people can differ on where that line should be.

LOOPHOLE said:   Glitch99 said:   LOOPHOLE said:   but when a corporate policy exists that prompts automatic calls to the police for buying a card, that's a problem
Now you are just making things up....


It has been stated or eluded to that this may have been a result of corporate policy. I did indicate that I was basing my statement on "the information at hand".


LOL. "stated or eluded[sic] to... may have been..." is a pretty big back pedal from "a corporate policy exists". Stop making things up; you don't win any arguments this way and even people in your own camp wince in pain.

I only read the first page of this thread but wanted to say something to the OP. Knowing lots of people with clearances much higher than the SECRET level - you have nothing to worry about losing your clearance. In the past foreclosures, short sales and other money "red flag" events were heavily weighed in re-investigations - not so much anymore. In addition, being pulled over and questioned is hardly a report-able offense.

sorry to hear about your troubles OP. I'd have been pissed. I'd just avoid that Walgreens and not give them my business(GCs and everything else).

stevick said:   OP was unquestionably under no obligation to cooperate, and must be commended for doing so. His assistance not only resolved the instant concern, but educated the officers on how best to respond to future complaints - a good thing.

The "state of our society" as I alluded to, was merely reference to the existence and persistence of crime. I believe it naive to think the police can alone deal with it, without at least some cooperation by citizens. Moreover, the "inconveniences" are not limited to being stopped on occasion, but extends to having to respond to subpoenas and testify on occasion. I hope we all agree that these "inconveniences" are the small price we must pay for the safety and security we desire. I do agree, however, that reasonable people can differ on where that line should be.


Thank you counselor for stating the obvious, everything else is up for debate, so I will leave the good, bad & indifferent citizens with the following advice:

• If the police “stop” me and ask me questions?
Suppose you are walking down a street when a police officer confronts you and says: “Stop. I need to ask you some questions.” A person is “stopped,” or “detained,” when an officer uses enough force, or a show of authority, to make a reasonable person feel he or she is not free to leave. If, in addition to calling out for you to stop and using his or her authority to make you stop, the officer also pulls out a weapon or uses a threatening tone of voice, it would be even clearer that you have been "stopped." If the officer interferes with your liberty to move about, he or she should first have a reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in a crime. The officer would need to support this suspicion later (should the matter should wind up in court) by referring to specific facts that prompted the suspicion.

The police do not have to tell you that you are a suspect or that they intend to arrest you, but if they use force or a show of authority to keep you from leaving, they probably consider you a suspect, even if you were the person who called the police. If they read or recite your Miranda rights, they suspect you have committed a crime.

You have the right, if you are stopped, to refuse to answer any questions for any reason or no reason. You can invoke your right to silence by saying, "I refuse to answer any questions" or "I want to speak to a lawyer" or "I wish to remain silent." If you do not clearly invoke your right to silence with such a statement, you may subject yourself to continued questioning by police.

Source: Ohio Bar

SpeedingLunatic is correct. In Salinas, the Sup. Ct. reaffirmed the long-standing rule that, in the absence of a coercive environment (i.e., under torture, in a Miranda-style custodial interrogation, etc.) the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination is not self-executing. In other words, you must assert it to have it, and the law will not assume you are asserting by your mere silence. The coercive environment changes things, because the coercion is assumed to stymie both an individual's ability to resist the self-incrimination, but also the ability to assert the right against it.

FoxOne said:   LOOPHOLE said:   Glitch99 said:   LOOPHOLE said:   but when a corporate policy exists that prompts automatic calls to the police for buying a card, that's a problem
Now you are just making things up....


It has been stated or eluded to that this may have been a result of corporate policy. I did indicate that I was basing my statement on "the information at hand".


LOL. "stated or eluded[sic] to... may have been..." is a pretty big back pedal from "a corporate policy exists". Stop making things up; you don't win any arguments this way and even people in your own camp wince in pain.


Yes, my mind was distracted with thoughts of what might have happened had he eluded the police, LOL. There may or may not be a corporate policy, but in this thread it has been mentioned. I for one would like to know if in fact such a policy exists & presumably would many others.

stevick said:   The "state of our society" as I alluded to, was merely reference to the existence and persistence of crime. I believe it naive to think the police can alone deal with it, without at least some cooperation by citizens. Moreover, the "inconveniences" are not limited to being stopped on occasion, but extends to having to respond to subpoenas and testify on occasion. I hope we all agree that these "inconveniences" are the small price we must pay for the safety and security we desire. I do agree, however, that reasonable people can differ on where that line should be.
So a high crime rate indicates a greater acceptance for pissing on the U.S. Constitution. Got it.

I don't have a problem being inconvenienced for a fair amount of real safety and security. I do have a problem with being accused, detained, and questioned without cause by individuals who have been afforded too much unchecked authority, that even when not abused, is inappropriate for them to have in a free society, in exchange for a minimal amount of illusionary safety and security.

Shall we vote?

GREEN = Cops were right

RED = Cops were wrong

GREEN = Walgreen's was right

RED = Walgreen's was wrong



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014