Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Drivers License

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question was, is it worth it to you to bear the additional shoplifting costs to protect these personal freedoms?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because if stores were no longer permitted/inclined to do receipt-checks at the front door, they would have to find other ways to protect themselves against shoplifters. Checking receipts at the door is *not* the only way to protect against shoplifters.

Besides, if stores were unable to protect themselves sufficiently against shoplifters and had to raise their prices, they'd lose business to stores who were more effective at protecting themselves against shoplifters and could offer lower prices as a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stores ARE unable to protect themselves sufficiently against theft. All of them are, whether they have people checking bags at the exits or not. You pay a higher price for all goods that you purchase every day because of shoplifting and employee theft.

I'm not saying who's right or wrong in this particular situation, just that it's naive to think that there is some obvious solution available to all of these stores to prevent theft and they are either too dumb to figure it out or choose not to use it. Unless you have the solution, of course, because you're making it sound pretty simple.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question was, is it worth it to you to bear the additional shoplifting costs to protect these personal freedoms?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because if stores were no longer permitted/inclined to do receipt-checks at the front door, they would have to find other ways to protect themselves against shoplifters. Checking receipts at the door is *not* the only way to protect against shoplifters.

Besides, if stores were unable to protect themselves sufficiently against shoplifters and had to raise their prices, they'd lose business to stores who were more effective at protecting themselves against shoplifters and could offer lower prices as a result.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are these other security measures that stores should use? Asking for a receipt is just about the least obtrusive measure a store can take. If you think security is "accosting" customers by asking for receipts, what is your solution to dealing with shoplifters? I don't think asking for a receipt solves everything by any means, but if you are against this, then I would imagine you are against other security measures. What would be acceptable forms of security? Don't businesses have the right to protect their property?

[/ QUOTE ]
The simple answer is to treat their employees better and monitor the registers more closely.

Others have pointed this out, but for whatever reason many seem to be missing it:

The LP guy doesn't sit there to catch garden-variety shop-lifters, but to catch scams that the cashiers run with customers

You can walk around Best Buy with a huge backpack and nobody will bother you when you walk out. But if you bought a CD and the cashier put it in a tiny little plastic bag, the LP guy would ask to see the bag. This is to make sure that you didn't pay for a CD and walk out with some $70 video game instead.

The problem here is untrustworthy employees. I have a feeling that implementing other strategies isn't as convenient or cost-effective as the current way, but in the end it's probably worth it in order to avoid even making one of your customers feel like a suspected shoplifter.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many of you want to bear the cost of increased shoplifting as a result of this guy's principles?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question cannot be answered until someone explains why discontinuing this procedure will result in a remotely meaningful increase in shoplifting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Less security = greater motivation for shoplifters. People will steal more if they think they are less likely to get caught. I'm not sure what kind of explanation you are looking for, it's very simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

They put a security guard at the exits. He checks for suspicious activity but he doesn't accost paying customers and demand that they show their receipts.

Same or better security. Done without the inspection procedure. Just because they discontinue the inspection procedure does not mean that security suffers.

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly.
I don't mind them having security at the door or even asking if it's okay to look at your receipt.
I suspect it does cut down on shoplifting and potentially even save on cost.
But the customer has a right not to comply and this is something that needs to be understood and evidently needs to be part of the training procedure for some.

If security and/or others were simply more attentive of stuff happening around them then I think that could help them out too. If there's only 1 or 2 people at the check-out line and nothing else is really happening then you can kind of keep an eye on those customers as they are checking-out and possibly not have to specifically inspect the bag every single time.
I think some smarter security people already do this.
I've walked towards the security door-check people on my way out before and have beenready to show them my receipt but they just let me go because they watched me check-out.
At Wal-Mart sometimes they seem to be more curious about the items that are too big to be bagged like a case of soda or something. But if they watched when I was paying for it and saw that no funny-business took place then they can just let you go.

[FoldYourLife]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question was, is it worth it to you to bear the additional shoplifting costs to protect these personal freedoms?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because if stores were no longer permitted/inclined to do receipt-checks at the front door, they would have to find other ways to protect themselves against shoplifters. Checking receipts at the door is *not* the only way to protect against shoplifters.

Besides, if stores were unable to protect themselves sufficiently against shoplifters and had to raise their prices, they'd lose business to stores who were more effective at protecting themselves against shoplifters and could offer lower prices as a result.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are these other security measures that stores should use? Asking for a receipt is just about the least obtrusive measure a store can take. If you think security is "accosting" customers by asking for receipts, what is your solution to dealing with shoplifters? I don't think asking for a receipt solves everything by any means, but if you are against this, then I would imagine you are against other security measures. What would be acceptable forms of security? Don't businesses have the right to protect their property?

[/ QUOTE ]

The LP guy doesn't sit there to catch garden-variety shop-lifters, but to catch scams that the cashiers run with customers

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, catching these types of people by asking for receipts is part of the solution. I think asking for a receipt is very reasonable and is a very economical way to do it. What is the alternative: let money walk out the door, hire some sort of pit boss at each register, something else... that extra cost is going to be passed on to the consumer. That's why I asked if it's worth it for people here to bear that cost, to avoid the possibility of showing a receipt.

[Howard Treesong]

Do you contend that you should always exercise every right that you have, all the time, 100%?

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
God damned Rosa Parks. She should have just sat at the back of the bus and not been an attention whore and a pain in the ass. A seat is a seat. What's the difference where it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any sense of proportionality whatsoever?

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
shouldn't stores have the right to make sure they aren't being stolen from? can't they make rules for all who choose to do business with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since this is not generally accepted behavior in the retail environment in this country, a policy like that would need to be clearly stated somewhere very visible.

Then it is up to the powers of capitalism. Would you choose to patronize a store that had a giant sign posted saying: "At Any Time, For Any Reason, One of Our Employees May Request a Search of Your Bags and Person. Your Decision to Shop Here is Your Consent to Comply With Our Policy"?

I wouldn't, and I don't think many people would.

edit: And if you decided not to shop there and comply with the policy, they can just kick you out. They can't hold you captive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, how about a store with a giant sign that says: "To keep our prices low, we reserve the right to look at your receipt when you leave the store with your bags. Your decision to shop here is a consent to that policy." Would you shop there? I sure has hell would.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you contend that you should always exercise every right that you have, all the time, 100%?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd contend that it's important to remind people who try to infringe upon these rights that I won't take it sitting down.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont understand how anyone can call this guy a douchebag. perhaps what he did was a waste of time and it wasn't really worth it for him to fight a battle with a dumb police officer, but i do think its cool that some people are willing to stand up to police officers who don't even know the law. i think the government should have to pay him for however many hours of his time they took up.

its kind of strange to me that police officers illegally arresting people doesn't bother some of you, and you even think that people who stand up to them are douchebags for not going along with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's a douchebag for not showing the circuit city employee his receipt. I'm with Righi, however, in not showing the policeman his license -- although I'd never have said it the way he did.

[rjoefish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The guy called the police because he felt he was being detained. The store 'perhaps' thought he was a shoplifter. He was not randomly approached by a police officer and asked for id. According to the statute buried in one of the blog entries, it sounds like you are required to identify yourself if you are the perp OR the witness (but it sounds like it would have to be a felony....I have no idea what level shoplifting or detainment would be).

Doesn't this make a difference?

[/ QUOTE ]
He called the police not as a perp or a witness, but as a victim (whether you agree with he was a victim or not that point). So he got arrested for failing to provide identification as a victim? Hrm...

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the cop got there and the store guy said 'we think he might have something he didn't pay for in his bag and he won't show us what's in it along with the receipt.' At that point the cop gets suspicious that he is indeed a 'perp'.