X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This guy will be whistling all the way to the bank when CC (and maybe the city?) pays him to make this go away.

[/ QUOTE ]
He will lose money on legal fees and I don't think he will win a dime.... I would bet you on this but unfortunately if a settlement is reached there always seems to be a stipulation that you can't reveal any monetary damages.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if this is true, which of course you have no way of knowing and seems dubious to me, this doesn't mean he picked the wrong battle.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets take a slightly different case. What if an electronic sensor goes off because the clerk didnt demagnetize it properly, you know you paid for it, so you refuse to stop and have your receipt checked. Is there reasonable suspicion to inspect or detain? Reasonable cause to inspect or detain?


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the store actually witnessed you stealing something, there is no cause to inspect and detain. The fact that their employees are too incompetent to demagnetize the products property does not give license to the store employees to violate private citizens' rights.

I actually had this exact thing happen to me as I was leaving a grocery store last week. I'm not sure what I had in my cart that warranted being "magnetized" in the first place, but whatever it was, it wasn't demagnetized by the clerk. In any case, I didn't stick around at the door to wait for an employee to come by to waste my time when I knew that I had done nothing wrong. I walked out to my car and put my groceries in the trunk. Nobody bothered to come out of the store to try to stop me from leaving.

Had they tried to physically detain me, I would have done my best to prevent them from doing so. The one thing that I wouldn't have done is played ball if they attempted to get me to return to the store so that they could search me.

I had $200 worth of groceries in my cart -- there was no way in hell that I was going to return to the store (looking like a criminal in the eyes of other customers as security lead me into the building) in order to have them go through my receipt and cart one item at a time.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets take a slightly different case. What if an electronic sensor goes off because the clerk didnt demagnetize it properly, you know you paid for it, so you refuse to stop and have your receipt checked. Is there reasonable suspicion to inspect or detain? Reasonable cause to inspect or detain?


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the store actually witnessed you stealing something, there is no cause to inspect and detain. The fact that their employees are too incompetent to demagnetize the products property does not give license to the store employees to violate private citizens' rights. <font color="red"> Are you stating this as opinion or law? Without doing the research I would think that a sensor going off would constitiute reasonable cause or reasonable suspicion</font>

I actually had this exact thing happen to me as I was leaving a grocery store last week. I'm not sure what I had in my cart that warranted being "magnetized" in the first place, but whatever it was, it wasn't demagnetized by the clerk. In any case, I didn't stick around at the door to wait for an employee to come by to waste my time when I knew that I had done nothing wrong. I walked out to my car and put my groceries in the trunk. Nobody bothered to come out of the store to try to stop me from leaving.

Had they tried to physically detain me, I would have done my best to prevent them from doing so. The one thing that I wouldn't have done is played ball if they attempted to get me to return to the store so that they could search me.

I had $200 worth of groceries in my cart -- there was no way in hell that I was going to return to the store (looking like a criminal in the eyes of other customers as security lead me into the building) in order to have them go through my receipt and cart one item at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red">Ive only been stopped once when a sensor went off, but whenever one does I gladly pause and give the guy at the desk an opportunity to check. If he makes no sign that he wants to, I continue on. </font>

[BCPVP]

Some links on reasonable cause:
California State University, Dominguiz Hills
answers.com
Security Experts

Nowhere have I found any evidence that refusal to consent to an exit bag check constitutes reasonable cause that the person has attempted to shoplift.

[Hopey]

In reading the law, my understanding is that police officers are the only members of the public who have the right to temporarily detain a private citizen due to "reasonable suspicion". This right does not extend to private citizens detaining other private citizens.

Copernicus keeps repeating that store employees (in some states) have a right to detain and search their customers due to "reasonable suspicion". I believe that he is mistaken and that only police officers have this right.

The store employees would be permitted to detain a person due to "reasonable cause", but the manner in which they arrive at "reasonable cause" is clearly spelled out and leaves very little to interpretation.

AMIRITE?

[saucyspade19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because every liberal idiot who thinks they are cleverly going to stick it to the man files a frivolous lawsuit that they were responsible for, and tie up the courts, and slow down society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any clue why a lawsuit is happening in the first place? The cop asked to see his ID, he said he'd just give his name (and he also gave him the receipt). The cop then placed him under arrest. Then he inspected the bag and saw that this guy hadn't stolen anything. He still took him down to the station and charged him with a crim.

Regardless of how douchebaggy you think this guy is, the "frivolous lawsuit" will occur because a police officer severely overstepped his boundaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The police officer overstepped his boundaries because captain america decided to break the social norm of an innocent person and act like a criminal. If the officer doesn't interpret radical liberalism like I do, he would come to the reasonable conclusion when arriving at this situation that this guy is stealing something, and act accordingly.

Instead of expressing his concern with their policies in a civil way, he chose a method that would embarrass the employees and make himself look like a martyr, from his perspective. This is the standard operating procedure for pussy liberals in this country, passive aggressive, and then when they meet aggressive-aggressive and wind up getting their ass kicked or thrown in jail, they file said frivolous lawsuits. They knowingly evoke responses, and then try to exploit them for moral or financial gain.


and if you think i exude partisan hate, I am not a conservative, I am more libertarian than anything. I just hate idiots who do stupid things to make a point and act out of principle when it inconveniences and hurts everyone around them. It's good that he traumatized his nephews and they got to see him cuffed and tossed in a cop car just because he had to make a point. Way to be a responsible adult.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
In reading the law, my understanding is that police officers are the only members of the public who have the right to temporarily detain a private citizen due to "reasonable suspicion". This right does not extend to private citizens detaining other private citizens.

Copernicus keeps repeating that store employees (in some states) have a right to detain and search their customers due to "reasonable suspicion". I believe that he is mistaken and that only police officers have this right.

<font color="red"> That is not correct. When I started researching it last night I found many states where reasonable suspicion was the standard for search and detention, but at 2 am I wasnt taking notes, especially after getting knocked out of a tourney on a 2 outer on the river!. I'll look back again tonight </font>

The store employees would be permitted to detain a person due to "reasonable cause", but the manner in which they arrive at "reasonable cause" is clearly spelled out and leaves very little to interpretation.

AMIRITE?

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because every liberal idiot who thinks they are cleverly going to stick it to the man files a frivolous lawsuit that they were responsible for, and tie up the courts, and slow down society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any clue why a lawsuit is happening in the first place? The cop asked to see his ID, he said he'd just give his name (and he also gave him the receipt). The cop then placed him under arrest. Then he inspected the bag and saw that this guy hadn't stolen anything. He still took him down to the station and charged him with a crim.

Regardless of how douchebaggy you think this guy is, the "frivolous lawsuit" will occur because a police officer severely overstepped his boundaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The police officer overstepped his boundaries because captain america decided to break the social norm of an innocent person and act like a criminal. If the officer doesn't interpret radical liberalism like I do, he would come to the reasonable conclusion when arriving at this situation that this guy is stealing something, and act accordingly.

Instead of expressing his concern with their policies in a civil way, he chose a method that would embarrass the employees and make himself look like a martyr, from his perspective. This is the standard operating procedure for pussy liberals in this country, passive aggressive, and then when they meet aggressive-aggressive and wind up getting their ass kicked or thrown in jail, they file said frivolous lawsuits. They knowingly evoke responses, and then try to exploit them for moral or financial gain.


and if you think i exude partisan hate, I am not a conservative, I am more libertarian than anything. I just hate idiots who do stupid things to make a point and act out of principle when it inconveniences and hurts everyone around them. It's good that he traumatized his nephews and they got to see him cuffed and tossed in a cop car just because he had to make a point. Way to be a responsible adult.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it doesn't bother you that the cop arrested him and never charged him with shoplifting? As in, the cop never ACTUALLY suspected shoplifting (your claim) but instead suspected assholery, and had no idea what the law was (you don't have to show a drivers license) and then arrested him anyway. This doesn't bother you?

EDIT: Also, not entirely sure you know what passive-aggressive means. The guy didn't piss in the cop's coffee when he wasn't looking, he simply refused to submit to an unlawful search. And he went to jail for it. What would aggressive-aggressive be, beating the cop to death?

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because every liberal idiot who thinks they are cleverly going to stick it to the man files a frivolous lawsuit that they were responsible for, and tie up the courts, and slow down society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any clue why a lawsuit is happening in the first place? The cop asked to see his ID, he said he'd just give his name (and he also gave him the receipt). The cop then placed him under arrest. Then he inspected the bag and saw that this guy hadn't stolen anything. He still took him down to the station and charged him with a crim.

Regardless of how douchebaggy you think this guy is, the "frivolous lawsuit" will occur because a police officer severely overstepped his boundaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The police officer overstepped his boundaries because captain america decided to break the social norm of an innocent person and act like a criminal. If the officer doesn't interpret radical liberalism like I do, he would come to the reasonable conclusion when arriving at this situation that this guy is stealing something, and act accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the cop simply acted inappropriately. Can you imagine this transpiring:

perg: "Hey cop guy, saucyspade has a gun on him, and he doesn't have a license"
cop: "I don't see a gun. What kind was it?"
perg: "Well I don't know, I didn't actually see it, I just asked him if he had one and he wouldn't tell me"

I'm pretty sure that any cop with half a brain would tell me he can't do anything. He sure as hell can't just pat the guy down out of nowhere.

Breaking social norms doesn't make you a criminal. Even if you think he "acted like a criminal" here by refusing to show the contents of his bag, that's no basis on which to treat him like he really is a criminal.

When someone pressures you into acting a certain way, that's an infringement of your freedom. In this case, the police officer said he'd arrest the guy if he didn't present some ID. Either way he'd have his freedom limited (forced to do something he feels he shouldn't, or go to jail). Evidently it was more important for him to make the decision that he felt was right rather than comfortable.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of expressing his concern with their policies in a civil way, he chose a method that would embarrass the employees and make himself look like a martyr, from his perspective. This is the standard operating procedure for pussy liberals in this country, passive aggressive, and then when they meet aggressive-aggressive and wind up getting their ass kicked or thrown in jail, they file said frivolous lawsuits. They knowingly evoke responses, and then try to exploit them for moral or financial gain.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not only standard operating procedure for pussy liberals, but it's also a pretty effective way of enacting social change. He could have written letters, which probably would be ignored. He could have started petitions or boycotts, but I have a feeling most people don't care enough.

Most unconstitutional laws don't get repealed by other laws. They get stricken down because someone was found guilty of a crime under a law that the courts later deem to be unconstitutional. That's the system we live under, and I think it's intelligent to work within it.

In this situation, the police officer violated Righi's 4th Amendment right (imo). This kind of behavior won't be fixed by rallies and letters to Congressmen. It'll be fixed when a court says, "you can't do that."

[ QUOTE ]
and if you think i exude partisan hate, I am not a conservative, I am more libertarian than anything. I just hate idiots who do stupid things to make a point and act out of principle when it inconveniences and hurts everyone around them. It's good that he traumatized his nephews and they got to see him cuffed and tossed in a cop car just because he had to make a point. Way to be a responsible adult.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's really strange to blame him for getting arrested when he didn't do anything wrong. The cop was the one who did something wrong. Last time I checked behaving in a way that "inconveniences" people is not grounds for incrimination.

Also I think the responsible thing is standing up for one's principles. In ten years he can explain this event to his nephews. Hopefully he can make the point that everybody doesn't always agree on what principles to stand up for, and when you feel it's worth doing, but the important thing is to never let anyone compromise your integrity for any reason, especially not on the basis that it's "convenient."

This reminds me a lot of this video where a health inspector trespasses on a guy's property. The sheriff says, "if you don't have anything to hide then why not let her look?" It doesn't work like that though. I'm not sure where people choose to draw the line... Righi apparently draws it at people digging through his bag of newly purchased goods. Others may think it's not worth the hassle. I imagine everyone draws a line somewhere though, and the question is how do you respond when someone oversteps it?

Also I find it incredibly ironic how Righi was arrested for not presenting an ID even though there was no reason to suspect him of a crime. In the video though, the health inspector refuses to identify herself other than by her first name and last initial, while the sheriff stands by and witnesses the trespass first hand. At the very least, without a warrant, he has to suspect a crime is taking place, hasn't he?

[saucyspade19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because every liberal idiot who thinks they are cleverly going to stick it to the man files a frivolous lawsuit that they were responsible for, and tie up the courts, and slow down society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any clue why a lawsuit is happening in the first place? The cop asked to see his ID, he said he'd just give his name (and he also gave him the receipt). The cop then placed him under arrest. Then he inspected the bag and saw that this guy hadn't stolen anything. He still took him down to the station and charged him with a crim.

Regardless of how douchebaggy you think this guy is, the "frivolous lawsuit" will occur because a police officer severely overstepped his boundaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The police officer overstepped his boundaries because captain america decided to break the social norm of an innocent person and act like a criminal. If the officer doesn't interpret radical liberalism like I do, he would come to the reasonable conclusion when arriving at this situation that this guy is stealing something, and act accordingly.

Instead of expressing his concern with their policies in a civil way, he chose a method that would embarrass the employees and make himself look like a martyr, from his perspective. This is the standard operating procedure for pussy liberals in this country, passive aggressive, and then when they meet aggressive-aggressive and wind up getting their ass kicked or thrown in jail, they file said frivolous lawsuits. They knowingly evoke responses, and then try to exploit them for moral or financial gain.


and if you think i exude partisan hate, I am not a conservative, I am more libertarian than anything. I just hate idiots who do stupid things to make a point and act out of principle when it inconveniences and hurts everyone around them. It's good that he traumatized his nephews and they got to see him cuffed and tossed in a cop car just because he had to make a point. Way to be a responsible adult.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it doesn't bother you that the cop arrested him and never charged him with shoplifting? As in, the cop never ACTUALLY suspected shoplifting (your claim) but instead suspected assholery, and had no idea what the law was (you don't have to show a drivers license) and then arrested him anyway. This doesn't bother you?

EDIT: Also, not entirely sure you know what passive-aggressive means. The guy didn't piss in the cop's coffee when he wasn't looking, he simply refused to submit to an unlawful search. And he went to jail for it. What would aggressive-aggressive be, beating the cop to death?

[/ QUOTE ]

from wikipedia:
Passive-aggressive behavior refers to passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following authoritative instructions in interpersonal or occupational situations. It can manifest itself as resentment, stubbornness, procrastination, sullenness, or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is assumed, often explicitly, to be responsible. It is a defensive mechanism and, more often than not, only partly conscious. For example, people who are passive-aggressive might take so long to get ready for a party they do not wish to attend, that the party is nearly over by the time they arrive.