Occupy Wall Street Vs. Black Friday Consumers At WalMart [Mod Edited Title]

[JunJun]

http://george4title.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-vs-black-friday.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnRaFkN2MBU

STOP VIOLATIONS OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT WITH RECEIPT CHECKING
STOP MILITARIZED SECURITY OFFICERS
STOP UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES BY MAJOR CORPORATIONS
STOP MINDLESS CONSUMERISM, STOP FEEDING THE BEAST
BOYCOTT BEST BUY, TARGET, TOYS R US, WALMART

A group of us from Occupy Wallstreet begin to protest the mindless consumerism being displayed on black friday at WalMart locations across the country. Join us as we engage and disrupt corrupt capitalism!

[CaptUSA]

Just dumb. If you can get your goods at a lower price, that means you will have more money in your pockets to spend on other things. This is an utter lack of economic understanding displayed here.

[armenia4ever]

http://george4title.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-vs-black-friday.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnRaFkN2MBU

STOP VIOLATIONS OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT WITH RECEIPT CHECKING
STOP MILITARIZED SECURITY OFFICERS
STOP UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES BY MAJOR CORPORATIONS
STOP MINDLESS CONSUMERISM, STOP FEEDING THE BEAST
BOYCOTT BEST BUY, TARGET, TOYS R US, WALMART

A group of us from Occupy Wallstreet begin to protest the mindless consumerism being displayed on black friday at WalMart locations across the country. Join us as we engage and disrupt corrupt capitalism!

-I don't know if receipt checking can really be construed as a violation of the 4th amendment. Regardless, its that companies/store/corporations choice whether they will check receipts or not. It's also the consumers choice to continue to do business with them or not based on their policies. Let the free market reign.
- Who exactly defines what constitutes "fair trade". I see this label alot on food products where I work, and its always just stands out to me as yet another attempt to try and sell one's product. While I don't see anything wrong with this, I don't specifically see anything wrong with "unfair" trade practices. If some company wants to use sweatshopped labor products, let them. But let's also allow the consumer to reward this policy, or punish it based on their spending. (So in essence, protest away.)

[kylejack]

Black Friday: You can pitch a tent for capitalism, but not to protest your government.

[brandon]

So now you're protesting the 99% too?

[CaptUSA]

And how is it "corrupt" capitalism if a person decides to exchange his money for a good that he values more? Dude, that's not corruption you're protesting, it's the free exchange!

I will grant you that the hype is ridiculous, but so what? There's nothing "corrupt" about this. Corruption is taking my money against my will to give to people who you think deserve it more.

Too many of you need to take an economics class. And try to stay awake during it.

[AGRP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDxUjMOKROU

[Sola_Fide]

http://george4title.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-vs-black-friday.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnRaFkN2MBU

STOP VIOLATIONS OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT WITH RECEIPT CHECKING
STOP MILITARIZED SECURITY OFFICERS
STOP UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES BY MAJOR CORPORATIONS
STOP MINDLESS CONSUMERISM, STOP FEEDING THE BEAST
BOYCOTT BEST BUY, TARGET, TOYS R US, WALMART

A group of us from Occupy Wallstreet begin to protest the mindless consumerism being displayed on black friday at WalMart locations across the country. Join us as we engage and disrupt corrupt capitalism!

Um... Checking your receipt at the door is not a violation of the 4th amendment. If WalMart hires security during black Friday that you don't like, then in a free economy, you can protest by not shopping at WalMart and speaking out against them if you want. You see, the market decides what is acceptable in that regard. If too many people stop patronizing WalMart, they will adjust to the market pressures to stay profitable.

What law do you want to pass to "stop mindless consumerism"? Don't you care about your freedom?

The muckrakers in the early part of the 20th century didn't succeed in stopping unfair trade practices. The new regulations only accomplished a further entrenched corporatism. It succeeded in making monopolies even worse than what they were perceived to be. It opened up new channels where corporations and government colluded and it took away even more of your freedom.

Monopolies exist because of government, not the market. Unfair trade practices are a result of government and business collusion.

[brandon]

lol Don't even respond to him aqua, we all know he's an idiot

[kylejack]

Employees have no right to check my receipt as I'm leaving unless they have reason to believe I stole something. I just breeze right past them. "Sir! Sir!" See ya.

The one exception I have for this is membership stores like Costco. I agreed to let them check my receipt as part of the membership, so these I will stop for.

[Stevo_Chill]

the constitution is written to restrain the government, not walmart.

[kylejack]

the constitution is written to restrain the government, not walmart.
True, it's not a 4th amendment violation. Still, no corporate goon has cause to lay hands on me unless they think I stole something. I don't have to show any papers to leave the store.

[LibertyEagle]

Ugh. George4Title. (aka Ghemminger)

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How was this guy EVER a Ron Paul supporter? He is clueless.


My Experience of Surviving and Thriving in the new economy I'm a Founder of SurviveAndThriveTV and The National Inflation Association. I reports on the economy and helps businesses connect with targeted viewing audiences though online video.
:rolleyes:

Contrary to what he told Peter Schiff, apparently he's still with NIA too.

[Stevo_Chill]

True, it's not a 4th amendment violation. Still, no corporate goon has cause to lay hands on me unless they think I stole something. I don't have to show any papers to leave the store.

going to walmart is a voluntary action. property rights dictate- they make the rules at walmart.
a lot of stores have account cards for discounts. they use them to track your purchases. i don't feel creeped out about it because i get to choose if i want to use it. and any store that is found to abuse that process would lose customers.
free market works.

[LibertyEagle]

JunJun = Ghemminger = George4Title

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?314819-AAA-Tow-Truck-Driver-Speaks-Out-On-Fullerton-Police-Extortion&p=3545456&viewfull=1#post3545456

[kylejack]

going to walmart is a voluntary action. property rights dictate- they make the rules at walmart.
Walmart can make many kinds of rules, but they can't keep me from leaving their property. In fact, the penalty for violating most of their rules should be ejection from the property and nothing more. They have no right to detain me, unless they have reason to believe I stole something, and refusal to show my receipt isn't good enough.


free market works.
As does freedom of travel.

[Stevo_Chill]

Walmart can make many kinds of rules, but they can't keep me from leaving their property. In fact, the penalty for violating most of their rules should be ejection from the property and nothing more. They have no right to detain me, unless they have reason to believe I stole something, and refusal to show my receipt isn't good enough.


As does freedom of travel.

i think some of the an-caps can better address this, because they deal in terms of no monopoly of force by government. in such a world- a property owner could kidnap someone who they feel have violated their property rights. actually, they could kidnap anyone for any reason. the recourse would be informing people that it isn't safe to shop at walmart or you may end up in a basement cellar with guido.

[kylejack]

Well if you want to discuss it in an-cap context, I'll use force to protect myself if someone attempts to violate my rights. But anyway, I'm a minarchist.

[Anti Federalist]

Just dumb. If you can get your goods at a lower price, that means you will have more money in your pockets to spend on other things. This is an utter lack of economic understanding displayed here.

Not when that is all you can possibly afford.

The flood of cheap imported consumer goods does nothing but mask the currency devaluation.

[Becker]

receipt checking is anti-4th Amendment? LMAO. No wonder people see "patriots", conspiracy theorists as criminal and terrorist sympathizers

[bill1971]

the constitution is written to restrain the government, not walmart.

That made me laugh. Good point.

[Rael]

Employees have no right to check my receipt as I'm leaving unless they have reason to believe I stole something. I just breeze right past them. "Sir! Sir!" See ya.


Lol. I've done this before, "Sir! Sir!" seems to be all they are capable of saying.

[Becker]

True, it's not a 4th amendment violation. Still, no corporate goon has cause to lay hands on me unless they think I stole something. I don't have to show any papers to leave the store.

it's their private property, they have shopkeeper's privilege and they can arbitrarily set standards on what they view as suspect for stealing, yes, they check because they suspect you, that's their policy and they have no obligation to bend for you, you are not forced to shop on their premises.

[Becker]

Ugh. George4Title. (aka Ghemminger)

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How was this guy EVER a Ron Paul supporter? He is clueless.


:rolleyes:

Contrary to what he told Peter Schiff, apparently he's still with NIA too.

I NEVER believed him when he claimed he's distanced himself from them, at all. No surprise he'll always be around scammers because he has no shame.

[Becker]

Walmart can make many kinds of rules, but they can't keep me from leaving their property.


actually they can. You are agreeing to their rules the minute you step in. Luckily, there are local and state commerce laws which prohibit "unreasonable" detaining and imprisonment. But for the most part, they can do whatever they want short of physically injuring you (and that's thanks to laws that violate their property).



In fact, the penalty for violating most of their rules should be ejection from the property and nothing more.


Wrong, they have a right to eject you if they feel that's the best, if they have reason to believe you took more than you came with, they'll shake it out of you.



They have no right to detain me, unless they have reason to believe I stole something, and refusal to show my receipt isn't good enough.

As does freedom of travel.

Yes, unless they have reason to believe, and they are free to set any arbitrary reason they like (which local and state governments have made laws to restrict, for consumers).

[kylejack]

it's their private property, they have shopkeeper's privilege and they can arbitrarily set standards on what they view as suspect for stealing
No they can't. They are not allowed to search every person's bags just on the off chance that someone might have stolen. If they saw me pocket something, or if they saw me ducked down suspiciously behind some clothes, it is understandable that they could detain me. They can't search my bag just because I'm trying to leave their store.

Freedom of travel is paramount. A person who is not suspected of a crime must be permitted to leave the property, if they wish.

[Becker]

Black Friday: You can pitch a tent for capitalism, but not to protest your government.

you can camp if you pay rent, not when you don't.

[Becker]

Employees have no right to check my receipt as I'm leaving unless they have reason to believe I stole something. I just breeze right past them. "Sir! Sir!" See ya.

The one exception I have for this is membership stores like Costco. I agreed to let them check my receipt as part of the membership, so these I will stop for.

that is no different, you agreed to Walmart rules when you step in. I think they should make it more explicit to people entering though.

[kylejack]

Wrong, they have a right to eject you if they feel that's the best
Good, as I am trying to leave with my purchases anyway.

if they have reason to believe you took more than you came with, they'll shake it out of you.
And if they have reason to believe that, it is acceptable, but only in that case.

No court has found that a person is obligated to stop and let the door guy look through their purchases.

[Becker]

No they can't. They are not allowed to search every person's bags just on the off chance that someone might have stolen.


they are allowed to do anything legal on their property.



If they saw me pocket something, or if they saw me ducked down suspiciously behind some clothes, it is understandable that they could detain me. They can't search my bag just because I'm trying to leave their store.


They can say they saw just what you said



Freedom of travel is paramount. A person who is not suspected of a crime must be permitted to leave the property, if they wish.
there is no freedom to travel on private property.
and a person who is suspected of a crime or violation is subject to the property owner's detention, only as far as the law allows.

[kylejack]

that is no different, you agreed to Walmart rules when you step in.
Wrong, I don't. I never signed any contract with Walmart. If they want to limit access with rules then they should set up the controlled access.

I don't do it at Costco for purely pragmatic reasons: They could check the tape, look up my membership, and revoke it. Walmart can't revoke my membership, because I don't have one.

[Becker]

Good, as I am trying to leave with my purchases anyway.


they don't want to keep you, they just want to protect themselves



And if they have reason to believe that, it is acceptable, but only in that case.

No court has found that a person is obligated to stop and let the door guy look through their purchases.
no court has rejected shopkeeper's privilege, they only argue what is the reasonable line to draw.

[Anti Federalist]

Lol. I've done this before, "Sir! Sir!" seems to be all they are capable of saying.

Reminds me of this, when Mr. Fabulous agrees to play..."sir...Sir...SIR!...SIR!!...SIR!!!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDXYzUlv0S8&feature=related

[Becker]

Wrong, I don't. I never signed any contract with Walmart.


Oh, you wanna play this game? Walmart never signed a contract not to strangle you or poison you either, Walmart never signed a contract they'll abide by any laws that protect you. So according to you, they're free to do all that.



If they want to limit access with rules then they should set up the controlled access.


they do, its called a door, and its regulated within commerce laws.



I don't do it at Costco for purely pragmatic reasons: They could check the tape, look up my membership, and revoke it. Walmart can't revoke my membership, because I don't have one.

Walmart can ban anybody from shopping there, walmart can check tapes too.

[kylejack]

they are allowed to do anything legal on their property.

A) Detaining a person who is not suspected of anything is kidnapping.
B) Taking someone's possessions from them is theft.

If they don't like me, for example, taking a picture of a display in their store, they are certainly within their rights to make me leave. But they can't prevent me from leaving when I am not suspected of a crime.


there is no freedom to travel on private property.
They can certainly tell me I have to leave. They can't tell me I have to stay. Unless they have good reason to believe I committed a crime.

[kylejack]

Oh, you wanna play this game? Walmart never signed a contract not to strangle you or poison you either, Walmart never signed a contract they'll abide by any laws that protect you. So according to you, they're free to do all that.
Humans have a right to life and liberty. Governments are instituted to protect those rights. There is no right to search everyone's bags.


Walmart can ban anybody from shopping there, walmart can check tapes too.
Good, let them ban me, then. Meanwhile, I'm not stopping to show my receipt.

[Becker]

A) Detaining a person who is not suspected of anything is kidnapping.


it is, but there is no law governing what counts as suspicion, it's open for the shopkeeper to set.



B) Taking someone's possessions from them is theft.


not if they consented to it by entering your property



If they don't like me, for example, taking a picture of a display in their store, they are certainly within their rights to make me leave. But they can't prevent me from leaving when I am not suspected of a crime.


I never disagreed with you that they can't keep you if you're not suspected of stealing. I did say a dozen times, they can suspect you based on any stupid reason they think of, and you have nothing to say if they apply a ridiculous standard and say they suspect you of a crime



They can certainly tell me I have to leave. They can't tell me I have to stay. Unless they have good reason to believe I committed a crime.
there goes your so called "freedom to travel". yes, and they can say whatever they want to be "good reason to believe you committed a crime".

[kylejack]

you can camp if you pay rent, not when you don't.
Right, I have to pay rent to be on public property bought with money stolen from the taxpayers.

[Becker]

Right, I have to pay rent to be on public property bought with money stolen from the taxpayers.

yes, you do when its not designated for the specific purpose of camping.

[kylejack]

I never disagreed with you that they can't keep you if you're not suspected of stealing. I did say a dozen times, they can suspect you based on any stupid reason they think of, and you have nothing to say if they apply a ridiculous standard and say they suspect you of a crime
They can try to impose any ridiculous standard they want. Tough cookies, I'm leaving.

[kylejack]

yes, you do when its not designated for the specific purpose of camping.
Right, they steal the money, claim to own the land that is owned by the public, and then set rules.

[Becker]

They can try to impose any ridiculous standard they want. Tough cookies, I'm leaving.

I'm so jealous of your freedom to run without stopping.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

George is back? Is his dog still sick?

[JunJun]

we aren't protesting getting a good deal. we are protesting WalMart, which is a perfect example of unfair corporate capitalism. there are many examples, one would be ecouraging workers to seek food stamps and welfare to supplement low salaries. Walmart is a net negative on a community

[Becker]

Right, they steal the money, claim to own the land that is owned by the public, and then set rules.

what are you gonna do about it? complain online?

[kylejack]

what are you gonna do about it? complain online?
I'm not an occupier.

[Anti Federalist]

Holy smoke...4 red bars...never seen such a thing.

[Stevo_Chill]

Holy smoke...4 red bars...never seen such a thing.

with they way this forum has been ran lately, he should where it as a badge of honor.

[dannno]

Just dumb. If you can get your goods at a lower price, that means you will have more money in your pockets to spend on other things. This is an utter lack of economic understanding displayed here.

So if I can get something cheaper from someone who used slave labor, I should buy it from them :confused:

[Becker]

So if I can get something cheaper from someone who used slave labor, I should buy it from them :confused:

you should buy whatever you believe is necessary for your lifestyle. You're free to be concerned about how they've managed to obtain their goods, but you're not obligated to.

[bluesc]

4 red bars? Would that be -300 rep? How the hell did that happen? I guess I'll join in for the hell of it.

[dannno]

you should buy whatever you believe is necessary for your lifestyle. You're free to be concerned about how they've managed to obtain their goods, but you're not obligated to.

So I should financially support others who use violence to obtain their possessions and I shouldn't feel bad about it :confused:

[Becker]

So I should financially support others who use violence to obtain their possessions and I shouldn't feel bad about it :confused:

I wouldn't ask you to feel bad about it, and I personally don't. You're free to feel bad about it and vote with your wallet.

[dannno]

I wouldn't ask you to feel bad about it, and I personally don't. You're free to feel bad about it and vote with your wallet.

You don't feel bad about funding violence against other people :confused:

[Becker]

You don't feel bad about funding violence against other people :confused:

that is correct. unless it affects me negatively.

[Anti Federalist]

4 red bars? Would that be -300 rep? How the hell did that happen? I guess I'll join in for the hell of it.

Somebody has to be playing games.

Nobody could amass 400 neg reps with 8 posts.

[dannno]

that is correct. unless it affects me negatively.

Would you hire somebody to kill somebody else, like buying a hitman, if it benefited you positively?

[Becker]

Would you hire somebody to kill somebody else, like a hitman, if it benefited you positively?

I live in the US where it's illegal to do that, so you'd have to explain how that can be beneficial.

[Rael]

Oh, you wanna play this game? Walmart never signed a contract not to strangle you or poison you either, Walmart never signed a contract they'll abide by any laws that protect you. So according to you, they're free to do all that.


Doesn't work like that.

You might want to look into the concept of "false imprisonment". And they don't have to physically restrain you to commit the tort of false imprisonment.

Some jurisdictions recognize a "shopkeeper's privilege" which allows a shopkeeper to detain someone suspected of shoplifting. But even where the shopkeeper's privilege is recognized, there must be probable cause to believe that you are shoplifting. They cannot just stop every person who shops there.

[Rael]

Stop That Paying Customer! The Legality of Compulsory Receipt-Checking
Mar 12th, 2008 | Category: Articles

Written by: Steve Glista
Researched by: Matthew A. Schroettnig
Edited by: Lauren E. Trent

When Michael Righi heard someone running up behind him, he thought he knew what would come next. He expected a difficult conversation, maybe even some shouting or threats. He certainly didn’t expect to get handcuffed — but that’s exactly what happened after Righi walked out of a Circuit City in Cleveland, Ohio withoutHandcuffed Consumer showing his receipt to the security guard at the exit. He’s not the only shopper in recent months who has experienced frustration or met with open hostility after refusing to show a receipt on the way out of a store. Customers like Righi claim that the Fourth Amendment protects them from unreasonable searches, that it’s wrong for stores to treat all customers as suspected criminals, and that stores have no right to demand a receipt or anything else from every customer. Since so many stores are checking receipts, it can’t be illegal…can it?

The American system of law values few things more highly than the freedom for people to come and go as they please. The idea that retailers may deny that freedom to paying customers over a simple matter such as refusing to show a receipt offends privacy advocates in a fundamental way. One of the beautiful things about the law is that it seldom identifies an offense without creating a corresponding legal remedy. When a person is wrongly held prisoner, the victim can seek redress against his captor in a civil suit for false imprisonment.
Why check receipts?

Before considering whether detained customers like Michael Righi have grounds to sue, it helps to understand what motivates retailers to risk such liability. Today, nearly every retail outlet from Wal*Mart to Neiman Marcus offers at least one pocket-sized digital toy worth several hundred dollars. The 32 GB iPod Touch for instance, which Apple has priced at $499, is smaller than a pack of cigarettes. Without loss-prevention measures, a store like Costco could not afford to display an open rack of iPods without exposing itself to daily risk of substantial theft.

One approach retailers take to combat shoplifting is to keep small but valuable products in a locked display case. This method has the disadvantage that it may reduce sales, as customers are forced to obtain assistance before they can purchase the product. Another common approach is to wrap small and valuable items in large, difficult-to-open packaging. Unfortunately, packages designed to prevent theft can also frustrate legitimate buyers. The tough plastic used has proven dangerous enough that inventors have created specialized tools to help people open their new possessions without injuring themselves.

Receipt-checking is an increasingly popular loss-prevention method which retailers use to stymie would-be thieves. The brief stop discourages shoplifting by forcing each person to face down a guard before exiting the store. Unlike the locked display case, it doesn’t interfere with the customer experience until after the purchase is complete. The drawback to aggressive receipt-checking programs is that unless they train their employees carefully, retailers can quickly find themselves on the receiving end of a civil complaint.
Just Keep Walking

The customer who objects to showing a receipt wonders, “I haven’t done anything wrong, so why is this store treating me (and everyone else who shops here) like a suspected thief?” Many shoppers have a vague sense that mandatory receipt checks intrude upon some kind of Constitutional right. While a general right to privacy may emerge from the “penumbras, formed by emanations” of the Bill of Rights, one Amendment is frequently cited as protecting citizens from compulsory searches. Many people believe that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution always requires agents of the U.S. Federal and State governments to obtain a warrant before making an arrest or searching personal property. However, the Supreme Court has found leeway for law enforcement officers to act without a warrant in some common-sense situations. For example, an officer can arrest and search a suspect without a warrant when there is “probable cause” for the officer to believe that the suspect is in the process of, or has just finished, committing a crime.

Since the Supreme Court’s 1967 Terry v. Ohio decision, police officers must merely identify “specific and articulable facts” which motivate them to apprehend a suspect. After an officer has made such a “Terry stop,” he may conduct a cursory search of the suspect, generally including a pat-down for weapons and an examination of any personal property not concealed in the suspect’s clothing. Searches incidental to Terry stops are justified on the grounds that police officers have a compelling interest in their own personal safety, and the failure to discover a weapon could present an unacceptable risk.

If the receipt-checker were a government officer the Fourth Amendment would generally allow customers to refuse to show a receipt, because presumably at least some customers visit Circuit City but don’t try to steal anything. If the officer detained every customer and conducted a search, a court would bar the use of any evidence obtained, unless the officer had probable cause to believe either that he was personally in danger or that a particular customer had taken a five-finger discount. In reality, the responsibility for checking receipts usually belongs to a store employee rather than a police officer. Consequently, the Fourth Amendment does not restrain those private citizens as it would agents of the government.

Some members-only discount stores require their customers to give consent to be searched by an employee as a condition of membership. For example, the Costco membership agreement contains an unconditional consent to search on page 29. Customers who sign such an agreement (as all Costco customers must) would seem to have no grounds to complain if they are later required to submit to a receipt-check.
You’re not going anywhere!

As all first-year torts scholars know, “false imprisonment” is a legal term that describes the act of unlawfully confining a person against their will. Unfortunately for retailers with a nationwide presence, the actual details of the law vary by state. In most states a plaintiff must prove the following elements in order to make out his case. The offender first must have the intent to confine the victim, and second, must take action to actually confine them. Third, the offender must act without a legal justification for doing so. Fourth, the victim must be aware of the confinement while it’s happening, or be harmed by it. Finally, there must be no reasonable means for the victim to escape (or at least no means that the victim is aware of). If the offender physically blocks the exit with his body and refuses to move, that may be enough of a confinement to satisfy a jury.

Even if an accused shoplifter can prove all the elements of a false imprisonment claim, the retailer might have an out: most American jurisdictions recognize a limited “shopkeeper’s privilege” exception to the false imprisonment tort. Many states have enacted the common-law privilege as positive law (for example, Oregon’s law is ORS 131.655). In either form, the shopkeeper’s privilege allows a retailer to detain suspected shoplifters and inspect their personal property for stolen items. Such a detention will not be punished as false imprisonment as long as it is limited to a reasonable (short) time, takes place in the store, if the force used to detain the suspect is reasonable, and if the retailer had the reasonable belief (often defined in this context as equivalent to probable cause) that the suspect was attempting to steal or had already stolen something from the store. In practice, this last condition generally means retailers must actually see someone take an item and exit the store without paying for it before they attempt to confront the suspected thief.

So where does this leave Mr. Righi and other potential plaintiffs? In Mr. Righi’s case, he actually made it into his car before the security guard accosted him. Once he was in the car, the guard told him he couldn’t leave the premises, which is evidence of the guard’s intent to restrain him. The guard prevented him from leaving the parking lot, which satisfies the second element. Mr. Righi was also aware that the Circuit City employees were physically preventing him from leaving (element three). Before the police handcuffed him, he might have been able to escape from the Circuit City parking lot without injury to himself or to the security guard, but if he believed that he was effectively restrained, that may be enough to prove the fourth element (no reasonable means of escape). Assuming Mr. Righi gave a true account of all of the facts, it would seem his situation meets all the necessary elements for a false imprisonment claim against Circuit City.

What of the shopkeeper’s privilege? Most of the circumstances satisfy the conditions necessary for Circuit City to claim the detention was privileged. The defense would turn on whether the guard had probable cause to detain and search Mr. Righi for stolen goods. However, Circuit City does not have the power to forcibly search all of its customers, and the only specific and articulable fact that brought Mr. Righi to the guard’s attention was that when offered the opportunity to submit to a search, Mr. Righi politely declined. It is circular reasoning to suggest that the refusal to submit to a voluntary search is itself justification for subjecting a customer to one that is compulsory.

Should you show? Or should you sue?

Even though typical customers who refuse receipt checks might have the law on their side, it seems odd that a consumer electronics store was the place where Michael Righi chose to draw a line in the sand. Picking a fight with a retail security guard over a $20 receipt seems quixotic at best. Righi’s resistance stands out because, for most customers, the injury suffered from such a minor intrusion just isn’t significant enough to incur the cost of failing to comply with the guard’s request. But how should a customer who refuses to show their receipt expect to be treated by the law?

Litigious customers facing off against the police or Costco might not have much luck. Police need probable cause to conduct a search, and Costco members have voluntarily agreed to submit to searches. The question of law is more interesting when a retailer like Circuit City attempts to implement a receipt-check policy without the benefit of a member agreement. In states where the shopkeeper’s privilege exists, stores like Circuit City may only claim the privilege to search customers when the store agent has a reasonable belief that a customer has engaged in unlawful activity. It seems implausible that store agents could honestly claim they need to check every receipt on the grounds that they have a reasonable belief that every one of their customers is a thief.

[dannno]

I live in the US where it's illegal to do that, so you'd have to explain how that can be beneficial.

Well I suppose you could, you know, get away with it maybe.

Or what if it were legal to kill somebody in another country, and if you did so it would benefit you? Would you have them killed then?

Is your decision of what is right and wrong are purely based on your own personal outcome?

[Justinjj1]

Holy shit at the neg reps this guy received.

Anybody boycotting WalMart deserves a +rep IMO, I don't care what the reason.

[Becker]

Doesn't work like that.

You might want to look into the concept of "false imprisonment". And they don't have to physically restrain you to commit the tort of false imprisonment.


You are correct, physical restraint is not necessary for the tort of FI. Nonetheless, it is not a crime, which is why it's a tort, and it's left for the jury to decide whether the shopkeeper acted reasonably.



Some jurisdictions recognize a "shopkeeper's privilege" which allows a shopkeeper to detain someone suspected of shoplifting. But even where the shopkeeper's privilege is recognized, there must be probable cause to believe that you are shoplifting. They cannot just stop every person who shops there.

You can stop any person you like, I am not aware of any jurisdiction which makes it illegal. And yes, you must have probable cause if you want to detain them, (it only makes sense practically anyway) however, you do not need the legal standard of probable cause for criminal purposes.

[Becker]

Well I suppose you could, you know, get away with it maybe.

Or what if it were legal to kill somebody in another country, and if you did so it would benefit you? Would you have them killed then?


You'd have to be more specific about the benefits. But I will grant you the possiblity that it may be legal. "get away with it" is not good enough.



Is your decision of what is right and wrong are purely based on your own personal outcome?

Yes, my decision is based purely on my personal outcome, I don't see how you can say there's anything else that compels me to do something. Isn't that Ayn Rand's standard as well?

[Becker]

Even though typical customers who refuse receipt checks might have the law on their side, it seems odd that a consumer electronics store was the place where Michael Righi chose to draw a line in the sand. Picking a fight with a retail security guard over a $20 receipt seems quixotic at best. Righi’s resistance stands out because, for most customers, the injury suffered from such a minor intrusion just isn’t significant enough to incur the cost of failing to comply with the guard’s request. But how should a customer who refuses to show their receipt expect to be treated by the law?

.\

exactly. think practically, not principly.

[Rael]

You are correct, physical restraint is not necessary for the tort of FI. Nonetheless, it is not a crime, which is why it's a tort, and it's left for the jury to decide whether the shopkeeper acted reasonably.


Wrong. False imprisonment is also a common law misdemeanor. Model Penal Code section 212.3 addresses false imprisonment. It states that "a person commits a misdemeanor if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his liberty."


You can stop any person you like, I am not aware of any jurisdiction which makes it illegal. And yes, you must have probable cause if you want to detain them, (it only makes sense practically anyway) however, you do not need the legal standard of probable cause for criminal purposes.

First of all, if "stopping" someone includes making someone reasonably believe they are being held against their will, you cannot "stop any person you like". And second, probable cause is a requisite element for a valid search and seizure or arrest.

[Anti Federalist]

\

exactly. think practically, not principly.

Pffft...that's what's got us into this freaking mess.

It's always easier to just comply, that's why it's called "incrementalism".

And every day, you comply a little more, and give up a little more, until there is nothing left.

[Becker]

Wrong. False imprisonment is also a common law misdemeanor. Model Penal Code section 212.3 addresses false imprisonment. It states that "a person commits a misdemeanor if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his liberty."


keyword unlawfully. Which is to say, you committed a crime when you committed a crime.



First of all, if "stopping" someone includes making someone reasonably believe they are being held against their will, you cannot "stop any person you like". And second, probable cause is a requisite element for a valid search and seizure or arrest.

they never intended a valid search and seizure, or arrest. and "reasonably" is jury decided, so try it.

[kylejack]

keyword unlawfully. Which is to say, you committed a crime when you committed a crime.

they never intended a valid search and seizure, or arrest. and "reasonably" is jury decided, so try it.
A store can certainly ask to see my receipt. But if I just keep cruising, they can't stop me unless they saw me steal something. This is all just Security Theater anyway. It's not intended for the people making the purchases, it's for the people who might be thinking about stealing something (which is why the receipt checker rarely checks anything and just makes a mark on the receipt). I don't have time for that nonsense, so I keep walking. Securing their store is their business, not mine.

[Becker]

A store can certainly ask to see my receipt. But if I just keep cruising, they can't stop me unless they saw me steal something.


No, they can suspect you without seeing you steal.



This is all just Security Theater anyway. It's not intended for the people making the purchases, it's for the people who might be thinking about stealing something (which is why the receipt checker rarely checks anything and just makes a mark on the receipt). I don't have time for that nonsense, so I keep walking. Securing their store is their business, not mine.

now you admit they rare check, so what's your problem? you don't have time for this nonsense? Wait til somebody doesn't have time for yours, I know it's going to be fun. Yes, it's their business, you're certainly helping.

[Rael]

they never intended a valid search and seizure, or arrest. and "reasonably" is jury decided, so try it.

I was was replying to your statement that "you do not need the legal standard of probable cause for criminal purposes. ", not referring to the shopkeeper.

[kylejack]

No, they can suspect you without seeing you steal.

More power to them to suspect what ever nonsense they wish, but I'm leaving and won't be detained.


now you admit they rare check, so what's your problem? you don't have time for this nonsense?
I've got places to be. During the busy holiday season the line for the receipt checker can be quite long, and his task is pointless anyway. So see ya, I'm leaving.

"SIR! SIR!"

[Becker]

More power to them to suspect what ever nonsense they wish, but I'm leaving and won't be detained.


Be nice about it.



I've got places to be. During the busy holiday season the line for the receipt checker can be quite long, and his task is pointless anyway. So see ya, I'm leaving.

"SIR! SIR!"

don't run into the wrong security people, and don't complain when somebody says "they got better things to do" and "your concerns are pointless". that's all I can say.

[Becker]

I was was replying to your statement that "you do not need the legal standard of probable cause for criminal purposes. ", not referring to the shopkeeper.

We were talking about the shopkeeper privilege to begin with, so what else would we be talking about when I said "you do not need a legal standard for probable cause" when I am not referring to law enforcement, citizens arrest?

[kylejack]

Be nice about it.

don't run into the wrong security people, and don't complain when somebody says "they got better things to do" and "your concerns are pointless". that's all I can say.
Look, the receipt and all the things in my bag are my things. I've already bought them. They're my property. It's an important principle that I don't have to show anyone my stuff. If they're that afraid that every single customer might steal, then they need to get more proactive with monitoring the cameras for people who are stealing things.

[Becker]

Look, the receipt and all the things in my bag are my things. I've already bought them. They're my property. It's an important principle that I don't have to show anyone my stuff. If they're that afraid that every single customer might steal, then they need to get more proactive with monitoring the cameras for people who are stealing things.

how about they put up a sign that says "if you are in a rush, leave, if you don't like being stopped, don't enter"?

[Rael]

Do you guys also avoid the greeter when going IN walmart? Sometimes I'm taking in a return and they want to count my things. I went in recently and had several items and the lady wanted to to scan my stuff but she was having problems with her scanner. Someone asked her a question and when she was distracted I just walked to the customer service desk and was done in like 2 minutes.

[Rael]

how about they put up a sign that says "if you are in a rush, leave, if you don't like being stopped, don't enter"?

It wouldn't have any legal effect. But it would piss off customers.

[DamianTV]

4 Red Rep Bubbles and 8 Posts!? I couldnt accomplish that if I actually tried!