hasn't this happened before?

pecanpie said:hasn't this happened before?
That was at BestBuy.

bozo007 said:pecanpie said:hasn't this happened before?That was at BestBuy.And?

bozo007 said:momgoingbroke said:bozo007 said:pecanpie said:hasn't this happened before?That was at BestBuy.And?
For using $2 bills to make a payment

Bestbuy is notorios for treating its customers like criminals.

I stopped shopping there a long time ago.

momgoingbroke said:Wow! The guy has a point, but now he'll probably have to come up with $$$ to prove it! He also must have a lot of time on his hands to pursue this. I hope he wins.

mgb--I have to disagree with you.

I hope he loses in spectacular fashion. Why? Because he seems (and of course, I may be wrong) to be looking for trouble so to speak. He KNEW exactly what was going on (and admits as such) but decided to "play dumb". I would hazard a guess that this whole scenario was a "set-up" situation. I think that it's JUST stupid to behave like this gentleman did. He's looking for an excuse to sue someone, anyone, and puts himself in the situations to do so.

Of course, I could be wrong in my assumptions about this person.

bozo007 said:momgoingbroke said:bozo007 said:pecanpie said:hasn't this happened before?That was at BestBuy.And?
For using $2 bills to make a paymentsuspicions were roused when an employee noticed some smearing of ink... Finally, Secret Service agent Leigh Turner arrived, examined the bills and said they were legitimate, adding, according to the police report, "Sometimes ink on money can smear."

Freakin' geniuses at BestBuy.

MarilynKay said:momgoingbroke said:Wow! The guy has a point, but now he'll probably have to come up with $$$ to prove it! He also must have a lot of time on his hands to pursue this. I hope he wins.mgb--I have to disagree with you.

I hope he loses in spectacular fashion. Why? Because he seems (and of course, I may be wrong) to be looking for trouble so to speak. He KNEW exactly what was going on (and admits as such) but decided to "play dumb". I would hazard a guess that this whole scenario was a "set-up" situation. I think that it's JUST stupid to behave like this gentleman did. He's looking for an excuse to sue someone, anyone, and puts himself in the situations to do so. Of course, I could be wrong in my assumptions about this person.Yes, he might certainly be looking for trouble, no doubt, but it seems as if Ohio law is on his side, so far. I strongly disagree with the search policies that many stores use, so, if he has the time and money (no matter what his motive) then I hope he can win this.
In my area K-Mart and Wa1mart check bags all the time. I (reluctantly) show my receipt because I don't have the time to play these legal games. It's like the store wants my money, but doesn't trust me. I think there are other ways they can monitor store theft than to stop and check bags, especially when I am walking directly from the register!

hope he wins. what we need is a 20/20 or dateline investigation onto this types of cases/laws to educate the consumers. If the tv shows and educates consumer that you do not need to show and play all this bs then i can tell you more customers will just walk away and not show receipts. Its a big hassle going through all these legal things but the guy is right and seems Ohio's with him so far.

Speaking of Dateline, 20/20 abc on Friday be showing a special edition on how the 'To Catch a Predator Dateline NBC' investigation is going. Apparently most charges or all will be drop, and apparently dateline NBC also use tactics such as 'going to the person's home' to arrest people if i'm not mistaken. This is when the supposedly predator did not show up and a bunch of cops/Chris went to his house to arrest, i think it ended he committed suicide. Dateline doesn't show you everything on tv, only what makes them look good or good for television.

If theft is reduced by these checks and prices go down as a result, then I really do not mind them. The key is the way stores do the checking, as if its their right.

Checks are done random, sometimes its all, sometimes not. Do you think it is always 100% check all people leaving the store?

Regarding playing by rules, if he wins by law then guess who is playing by the rules? Stores want to do all these checks but are they really playing by the rules in the first place? If they are then they should win no problem.

The things is most people think there's this 'rule' to do so and so if it seems logical or majority or 90% of society think it is right and it makes sense but in reality there is nothing written to support what they think. Just because everyone does it and follow doesn't mean it is right or within the rule/law