yankees4life said:momgoingbroke said: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?

I agree...there was never a question of shoplifting....he purchased something and was leaving. I think this happens everyday..lol

If store employees are trying to detain you then odds are they suspect you of shoplifting. If I'm a police officer I'm going to assume a potential crime is taking place. Of course in this case the employees were idiots and shouldn't have tried to detain Michael unless they had more evidence.

Edit: At CVS where I worked a few summers we had a much different shoplifting policy. If we suspected someone of shoplifting we would have to immediately call a supervisor. Not only would we have to witness the actual act of concealment itself but we would have to maintain a view of the perp at all times. If we lost sight of the person at any time then we could no longer accuse that person of shoplifting. They might have put the item back and we'd have nothing on them except a potential lawsuit against us. Furthermore the manager will approach the subject but never try to block the exit for safety reasons.

I suppose things are a bit different though when the person is stealing a $3 tube of toothpaste compared to a $60 video game.

I breezed over the second (or 3rd and 4th depending on your set-up) page of this thread, so if someone said this already...sorry.

My big beef with this guys actions is that this is not a solo battle, his whole family's day/weekend was trashed by this man's actions. For me, my family's comfort takes presidence over my own...and maybe it's wrong, but it does take presidence over this minor 'injustice'.

Maybe this man is better than I for standing up for his rights (and yes I do believe he was right as defined by the law) on behalf of this country and ignoring his own family to do so, but I think that just makes him a douchebag.

sloan4356 said:yankees4life said:momgoingbroke said: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?

I agree...there was never a question of shoplifting....he purchased something and was leaving. I think this happens everyday..lol

If store employees are trying to detain you then odds are they suspect you of shoplifting. If I'm a police officer I'm going to assume a potential crime is taking place. Of course in this case the employees were idiots and shouldn't have tried to detain Michael unless they had more evidence.

Edit: At CVS where I worked a few summers we had a much different shoplifting policy. If we suspected someone of shoplifting we would have to immediately call a supervisor. Not only would we have to witness the actual act of concealment itself but we would have to maintain a view of the perp at all times. If we lost sight of the person at any time then we could no longer accuse that person of shoplifting. They might have put the item back and we'd have nothing on them except a potential lawsuit against us. Furthermore the manager will approach the subject but never try to block the exit for safety reasons.

I suppose things are a bit different though when the person is stealing a $3 tube of toothpaste compared to a $60 video game.

You are correct with the fact that IF you thought someone was shoplifting, you had to maintain eye contact with the person. But that did NOT happen here. They thought nothing of him until he refused to show his receipt from the order in the bag THEY gave him after he paid for the item.
The LP guy was UNREASONABLE in his reaction and the manager should be FIRED for his actions.

Innocent UNTIL proven guilty!

A fun read for sure.... Here's a comment on this incident I found on Digg's

When I first came to American from China I was a bit taken a back by clerks asking for receipts at the door. (the first time I told the guy to F##K OFF! and walked away.) In China only the police can stop you and question you regarding ownership of a items and only then if they have proof that the item was stolen (a clerk saying he saw you steal it or recording of the theft). But after being several stores where they asked for the receipt I searched the laws. I found out there were in fact many laws giving the stores the right to ask for the receipt. In some cases the stores have the right to search your bags before you leave the store. And in several states the clerks have police powers to question, search and even arrest people who are shopping their stores and steal from the store.too funny, in China, you get SHOT! for speaking out against the facist govenment.

yankees4life said:sloan4356 said:If store employees are trying to detain you then odds are they suspect you of shoplifting. If I'm a police officer I'm going to assume a potential crime is taking place. Of course in this case the employees were idiots and shouldn't have tried to detain Michael unless they had more evidence.

Correct....they had no reason to believe he had done anything wrong.Even more than that, when he asked the CC employee if they were accusing him of shoplifting, the CC employee said no.

He mentioned that he filed the paperwork to press charges against Circuit City for false imprisonment (because they wouldn't let him leave the parking lot). They might have a hard time explaining to the judge why they did that after they had already told him he wasn't accused of stealing.

MarilynKay said:JohnGalt69 said:

So by your logic, Rosa Parks should have lost? When policies are illegal and abusive, they should be challenged.
Comparing apples to oranges.

Segregation laws oppressed whole races of people.
and for you to say that someone having to show a receipt is akin to Rosa Parks on that bus, is extremely disrespectful to the entire movement to of equal rights fro all

I am absolutely stunned that you do not get it. Rosa Parks did not just happen to be on the bus that day. The NAACP was looking for somebody to challenge the law about black people having to sit in the back of buses. Rosa Parks was deliberately chosen to challenge the rule because of the sympathy she would generate. She then sat on the bus for the sole purpose of provoking trouble and challenging a law that was in fact, at the time, legal. The situation is 100% apropos.

Over and over, in big cases and small ones, sweeping laws and narrow ones, this is the way they are challenged. Someone deliberately makes trouble and gets arrested so that they can sue. You apparently have a problem with this tactic. Well guess what, it is not immoral or unethical, it is absolutely standard and often the only practical way to challenge an illegal law or policy. Your alternative is completely unacceptable and ineffective. Instead of challenging an illegal policy, you would have the guy not shop at the store. Totally ineffective compared to provoking an arrest and filing a lawsuit.

Explain to me why this is unethical or immoral? Why is it ethical for Rosa Parks and not for this guy? Because you can only challenge laws that are really bad? And who decides which ones are really bad? You, I guess?

JohnG, great post!

Corganiacs said:i have to show my receipt at sam's

At Sam's they check everyone's receipt. I've never had to show a receipt at BB, so it appears they do it "randomly" or is it "profiling". I think if they want to check receipts, they need to check them ALL. Not pick and choose.

Usually a store writes a line on the receipt.

But there isn't much they can do if you take your receipt back to the store, pick up something, take it to the clerk & ask for a refund.

lostdude said:Drouo said:JohnG, great post!Not bad argument but... I still got a laugh over it because all the stores needs to do from this point on is to post a sign saying they reserve the right to inspect all bags when you exit the store.

It's possible for a court to rule that store do not have that right regardless? Sure. Likely, Not.Yeah, that still doesn't give then the right to detain you for refusal. The best they can do is ask you not to return to the store. But even that is dicey. Even stores with memberships can't detain you for not showing them your receipt. They can revoke your membership, but they can't do anything else.

I think this guy wasn't looking for a court case, but, like me, he just doesn't put up with his rights being trampled. For those of you that do, so be it, but anyone here saying we should have to submit because it's easier should take a long walk off a short pier.

I had a very similar situation occur at a Dunham's a few days ago. I regularly (pretty much always) refuse to allow a store to check my receipt on principle. So I guess I'm asking to be arrested too, huh? The only reason in this case the guard actually saw my receipt was because I still had it in my hand on top of the box I was carrying. We argued, he started to get in my face, I flashed it at him- only long enough to see a piece of paper and he backed off. The stores' laziness in theft prevention is not a good reason for me to kowtow to them.

Also, with regards to him refusing to provide his ID.
A.) He is not obligated by law to do so- as posted by Nailman. We don't really need an lawyers, the law was posted and it's pretty much clear with little "legal" interpretation.
B.) Did the cop ask the manager and LPO for their ID- I doubt it.
C.) What was the tone of the cop. If this guy knows his rights, and is the originator of the call, then he has a right to feel put off by a cop being rude or intimidating.

I worked retail loss prevention for a couple of years during college (and a total of security for about 7.) Many LP people are people either trying to get into law enforcement or those that have tried and failed. Either one is a recipe for disaster, because they often act as though they ARE police. While the job can be dangerous (I was hit be the car of a fleeing shoplifter and stabbed in the arm) it doesn't endow them with any special authoritative powers. They need to realize this.

This guy is in the right and I plan on donating to his cause.

Here's his website for updates and such-

Michael Righi website

There was a similar incident at a Tiger Direct, and because the guy wasn't detained long enough, no one wanted to take his case, and the local AG rep refused to press charges against the store. Which, in my opinion is a load of crap.