nailman said:sloan4356 said:nailman said:

Try reading a post before you respond to it. I made none of those claims you mentioned in any of my posts. And yes I still insist that he is a smart ass for not showing a drivers license to a police officer that he called. And again I will state that I'm not positive whether he has a legal responsibility to show identification to the officer or not.

Yeah I know what you said, you said that you know nothing about the law and instead of researching you came to the conclusion that the guy is a smart ass.

Regardless of what side the law Michael is on he was being a smart ass who was clearly just trying to cause a scene. You don't need to be a legal scholar or d google research to see that. I can't see how anyone could consider flashing a drivers license, to a police officer that you happened to call for help to verify your identity, as an unreasonable civil rights depriving request. The only angle I can possibly think of as to why some people would be opposed to such a simple request is if they were trying promote a policy to protect illegal immigrants in a sanctuary city.

Goferebater said:One of the most skilled jobs in the world is a receipt checker at Sam's or Costco. I about 5 seconds, they can scan a receipt, look through a loaded cart, and get a positive match on every item purchased.

I'm sure they just try to match up the high priced items and get a quick estimate of how many items a person has.

dairymtu said:Just because 99% of us who likes to show ID when asked and do as told simply because 'we have nothing to hide' and there's this person who maybe has a case does something different doesn't make him a smart ass.

If he wins and i hope he does, it makes 2 points:

1. CC or any other department store know nothing about legal laws when it comes to checking receipt. They do as they please because 'its no big deal' unless you have something to hide.
2. The fact that the police arrested him also shows that an officer of the law are not well trained and do as they please. Again, just because they 'do not know their own law', the innocent get punish. Which is again why most of us just give up and surrender our rights. So if you're wrong, arrested. If you're right and even if you told the law in front of the officer he would have still arrested you for being a smart ass and charge you with something else ugghh when he gets back to HQ and discuss with his buddies and look through the book.

The fact that some places just circle receipts and not do any thorough check (someone mention this few post back) does not help them either. If they can't even do the job right why even check receipt in the first place. It serves no purpose. Might as well just fly pass by.

Most people are really uneducated when it comes to our rights, what we can or cannot do. We fear the law because even if we're 100% sure we're right we still get arrested temporarily and have to go through S%*T. So it really doesn't help most of us to fight this crap. And i'm sure that most people that don't know the law/rights are actually the good guys because we never been in such situations before.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know if he is right or wrong at this point. He was involved in the potential crime of shoplifting and I don't see how showing a police officer an id to verify his identity was innapropriate. I'm sure the court will feel the same way but we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.

And yes of course he was trying to make a scene, here's an excerpt from his blog.

I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver’s license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused.

His argument fails on the key point that he called the police officer and he was potentially involved in a crime. If he had been walking down the street and a police officer randomly asked to see his "papers" then his argument would have made more sense. I do agree about his argument against Circuit City, they have no right to make him show a receipt or check his bag unless they had a real reason such as seeing him conceal an item or if he had set off the sensor at the door.

sloan4356 said:

Regardless of what side the law Michael is on he was being a smart ass who was clearly just trying to cause a scene. You don't need to be a legal scholar or d google research to see that. I can't see how anyone could consider flashing a drivers license, to a police officer that you happened to call for help to verify your identity, as an unreasonable civil rights depriving request. The only angle I can possibly think of as to why some people would be opposed to such a simple request is if they were trying promote a policy to protect illegal immigrants in a sanctuary city.

You are trying to take a complicated legal issue and turn it into a coffee table discussion.

"Regardless of what side the law Michael is on", that is the only issue for Michael and for anyone else in this situation. Are you aware of a case at WalMart where a woman was arrested and charged with shoplifting because a clerk could not get a dept. head to pick up the phone for a price check? The clerk decided to estimate a price (this has happened more than once to me) and continue to check the lady out. The door greeter stopped her and had her arrested for theft because the price was not correct, even though the clerk admitted to police that she was the one that set the price. There was never any suggestion that the two acted in concert.

Door checks are to get a highlighter on the receipt to prevent someone going to their car and returning to the store and then exiting with the same goods. How often would that happen? How is that my problem? There is no law against door checks and their is no law saying that you must comply with the request. Since I havent stolen anything...get out of my way.

I forget the figures but something like 60% of theft is from employees so the same people who check your receipt may very well be stealing from the store...irionic no?

momgoingbroke said:nailman said: Door checks are to get a highlighter on the receipt to prevent someone going to their car and returning to the store and then exiting with the same goods. Had to show my receipt a few times but never was it highlighted except at warehouse/membership stores.

See I told you them door people are incompetent.

Probably depends where you live, there are only 3 stores here that do it and I quit shopping there when some guy watched me pay at an empty store walk the 20 feet to him and then asked for my receipt...which he poked with a pen, never looked in my bag.

I wonder what would have happened if when the police arrived, he demanded the police arrest the manager for illegally detaining him without probable cause??

There is nothing worse than waiting on a long line at a store to buy the item and then waiting on another line to verify that you bought the item. While you may not be legally obligated to show your receipt to the guard at the door, you risk being banned from the store and charged with trespassing if you ever return.

However this guy really screwed up when he gave the officer a hard time and refused to show his drivers license. In reality the officer was looking for a positive form of identification which for most people is a drivers license. Most people who don't drive have a non-driver id.

MarilynKay said:Comparing apples to oranges.

Rather odd that you don't see the comparison, but I believe the response was to this portion of your post.

MarilynKay said:If you aren't willing to play by their rules when you go there (again this is assuming you know the rules) then don't shop there!
Yep--we all have rights! I have the right NOT to shop somewhere that I disagree with their policies. I have the right to just say no! And while that may not make a lot of difference in a store's profit margin--at least *I* will have made a stand in an ethical and moral manner that doesn't involve being arrested.

The rule was blacks sit in the back and/or give up their seat. When applied, your statements basically said Rosa should've stayed home and not take a stand and be arrested. Consider that back then, a good portion of society still considered what she did to be wrong, this guy at least appears to have the law on his side. As for mitigating the legitimacy of this guy's situation when compared to the equal rights movement, you seem to forget that it also started with an insignificant event and no one at the time could've predicted the effects it eventually brought to our society. After all, she could've just given in and changed seats. You might want to keep this thread in mind when in the future, you're required to show ID before leaving town and have to give a DNA sample before crossing state lines.

KuoH

nailman said:

You are trying to take a complicated legal issue and turn it into a coffee table discussion.

"Regardless of what side the law Michael is on", that is the only issue for Michael and for anyone else in this situation. Are you aware of a case at WalMart where a woman was arrested and charged with shoplifting because a clerk could not get a dept. head to pick up the phone for a price check? The clerk decided to estimate a price (this has happened more than once to me) and continue to check the lady out. The door greeter stopped her and had her arrested for theft because the price was not correct, even though the clerk admitted to police that she was the one that set the price. There was never any suggestion that the two acted in concert.

Door checks are to get a highlighter on the receipt to prevent someone going to their car and returning to the store and then exiting with the same goods. How often would that happen? How is that my problem? There is no law against door checks and their is no law saying that you must comply with the request. Since I havent stolen anything...get out of my way.

I forget the figures but something like 60% of theft is from employees so the same people who check your receipt may very well be stealing from the store...irionic no?

Well I'm not a lawyer and you presumably aren't a lawyer. This isn't a law forum but rather an off-topic forum on a deal website. A coffee table discussion is really the best we can do here. I wish we had some more legal scholars here to explain the law to us but it appears that we don't.

I am well aware that a very large percentage of shrink comes from employees themselves. Of course when employers try to crack down on employees you get the anti WalMart / pro union crowd riled up.

sloan4356 said: The fact of the matter is that we don't know if he is right or wrong at this point. He was involved in the potential crime of shoplifting and I don't see how showing a police officer an id to verify his identity was innapropriate....

His argument fails on the key point that he called the police officer and he was potentially involved in a crime.So, twice you say he was "involved in a potential crime of shoplifting...the guy was SHOPPING! Where do you see this involvement?