|
|
#111
09-08-2007, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
[ QUOTE ]
I dont buy your explanation that the sole purpose of checking receipts is undercharging by cashiers. [/ QUOTE ] He didn't say it was the sole purpose but he is correct that it's the main purpose. Catching the odd shoplifter, or rather deterring shoplifters, is a bonus. 
|
|
#112
09-08-2007, 12:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Guys, does everyone realize that the purpose of the reciept checking at Circuit City is not to deter shoplifting by the customer from the checkout counter to a few feet away at the door? Next time your in-store, check out how much shit you could conveivably grab from checkout to door and you'll see there isn't much in the way of pluckable merchandise. The purpose of the checking of the reciepts is a self imposed company policy to check their own employees...ie...make sure the checkout girl isn't stuffing tons of shit in a friends bag posing as a customer, and then ringing them up for a fraction of the total. They are asking you to comply at their request to QA their own employees, and deter their checkout employees from the temptation to under-ring items for friends...knowing another employee is cheking on the way out. At absolute worst, if a LP employee argues that the failure to show a reciept establishes probable suspicion (which I don't think it does in and of itself).....but either way, even if it could be established that it does constitute probable suspicion, it would be suspicion of the checkout employee, as defined by their own company explanation of why they conduct reciept checks in the first place. Attempting to detain the customer once out of the building should have resulted in a criminal arrest of the LP employee, with charges pressed by the customer... once the customer provided sufficient evidence that he did not steal anything, and that no probable suspicion existed to detain him outside of company property. [/ QUOTE ] I dont buy your explanation that the sole purpose of checking receipts is undercharging by cashiers. It has nothing to do with proximity to the door, because the warehouse stores check receipts far away from the cashiers. WRT detaining him outside the store, he didnt provide that proof until he was outside the store AND the police came, at least in the versions of the incident that I read. [/ QUOTE ] I had never considered this explanation for the purpose of receipt checkers, but it's obviously true. Your warehouse store objection is not persuasive because there's no merchandise between the registers and the exit, and there's no way to get between the merchandise area and the exit other than through the register area.
|
|
#113
09-08-2007, 12:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It seems to me that a store should be allwoed to have the policy that they search their customer's bags before they leave. If you don't like it, don't shop there. [/ QUOTE ] Regardless of whether or not this is the store's policy, what right does the store have to detain you if you don't comply? Violating a store policy does not cause you to suddenly lose all of your civil rights. The store's remedy for those who do not obey their policies is to inform these people that they are no longer permitted on their property. If these people return to the store, they can be charged with trespassing. [/ QUOTE ] And the shoplifter move on to the next circuit city that has the same policy. Very effective. [/ QUOTE ] What does this have to do with shoplifting? This is about the store checking receipts at the door. The store can detain actual shoplifters all they want. They just need to keep their hands off those of us who haven't actually violated any laws. [/ QUOTE ] Just because you feel it infringes on your rights doesnt mean they are incorrect that it is an effective shoplifting different. As the poster you responded to said, dont like it, dont shop there. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for you to continue shopping in a store whose policies you do not agree with and have no intention of following. I don't see why the store should be permitted to violate my rights if I still decided to set foot inside their premises, though. [/ QUOTE ] Because by setting foot inside the door you voluntarily agree to relinquish that right. The conspicuous posting of the policy creates an implied contract. [/ QUOTE ] Is there any indication when you approach a Circuit City from the outside that they intend to search you upon exit?
|
|
#114
09-08-2007, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It seems to me that a store should be allwoed to have the policy that they search their customer's bags before they leave. If you don't like it, don't shop there. [/ QUOTE ] Regardless of whether or not this is the store's policy, what right does the store have to detain you if you don't comply? Violating a store policy does not cause you to suddenly lose all of your civil rights. The store's remedy for those who do not obey their policies is to inform these people that they are no longer permitted on their property. If these people return to the store, they can be charged with trespassing. [/ QUOTE ] And the shoplifter move on to the next circuit city that has the same policy. Very effective. [/ QUOTE ] What does this have to do with shoplifting? This is about the store checking receipts at the door. The store can detain actual shoplifters all they want. They just need to keep their hands off those of us who haven't actually violated any laws. [/ QUOTE ] Just because you feel it infringes on your rights doesnt mean they are incorrect that it is an effective shoplifting different. As the poster you responded to said, dont like it, dont shop there. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for you to continue shopping in a store whose policies you do not agree with and have no intention of following. I don't see why the store should be permitted to violate my rights if I still decided to set foot inside their premises, though. [/ QUOTE ] Because by setting foot inside the door you voluntarily agree to relinquish that right. The conspicuous posting of the policy creates an implied contract. [/ QUOTE ] An implied contract that they are allowed to forcibly detain me? No, it does not. [/ QUOTE ] Deleted An implied contract that they can check your receipt, and if you don't comply then they can detain you on reasonable suspicion within a reasonable distance and time of your leaving the store.
|
|
#115
09-08-2007, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Guys, does everyone realize that the purpose of the reciept checking at Circuit City is not to deter shoplifting by the customer from the checkout counter to a few feet away at the door? Next time your in-store, check out how much shit you could conveivably grab from checkout to door and you'll see there isn't much in the way of pluckable merchandise. The purpose of the checking of the reciepts is a self imposed company policy to check their own employees...ie...make sure the checkout girl isn't stuffing tons of shit in a friends bag posing as a customer, and then ringing them up for a fraction of the total. They are asking you to comply at their request to QA their own employees, and deter their checkout employees from the temptation to under-ring items for friends...knowing another employee is cheking on the way out. At absolute worst, if a LP employee argues that the failure to show a reciept establishes probable suspicion (which I don't think it does in and of itself).....but either way, even if it could be established that it does constitute probable suspicion, it would be suspicion of the checkout employee, as defined by their own company explanation of why they conduct reciept checks in the first place. Attempting to detain the customer once out of the building should have resulted in a criminal arrest of the LP employee, with charges pressed by the customer... once the customer provided sufficient evidence that he did not steal anything, and that no probable suspicion existed to detain him outside of company property. [/ QUOTE ] I dont buy your explanation that the sole purpose of checking receipts is undercharging by cashiers. It has nothing to do with proximity to the door, because the warehouse stores check receipts far away from the cashiers. WRT detaining him outside the store, he didnt provide that proof until he was outside the store AND the police came, at least in the versions of the incident that I read. [/ QUOTE ] I had never considered this explanation for the purpose of receipt checkers, but it's obviously true. Your warehouse store objection is not persuasive because there's no merchandise between the registers and the exit, and there's no way to get between the merchandise area and the exit other than through the register area. [/ QUOTE ] It is part of the purpose but not the entire purpose. It is very easy to pass merchandise across unused register lanes at warehouse stores. People stand on either sides of the wires talking with each other all the time.
|
|
#116
09-08-2007, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It seems to me that a store should be allwoed to have the policy that they search their customer's bags before they leave. If you don't like it, don't shop there. [/ QUOTE ] Regardless of whether or not this is the store's policy, what right does the store have to detain you if you don't comply? Violating a store policy does not cause you to suddenly lose all of your civil rights. The store's remedy for those who do not obey their policies is to inform these people that they are no longer permitted on their property. If these people return to the store, they can be charged with trespassing. [/ QUOTE ] And the shoplifter move on to the next circuit city that has the same policy. Very effective. [/ QUOTE ] What does this have to do with shoplifting? This is about the store checking receipts at the door. The store can detain actual shoplifters all they want. They just need to keep their hands off those of us who haven't actually violated any laws. [/ QUOTE ] Just because you feel it infringes on your rights doesnt mean they are incorrect that it is an effective shoplifting different. As the poster you responded to said, dont like it, dont shop there. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for you to continue shopping in a store whose policies you do not agree with and have no intention of following. I don't see why the store should be permitted to violate my rights if I still decided to set foot inside their premises, though. [/ QUOTE ] Because by setting foot inside the door you voluntarily agree to relinquish that right. The conspicuous posting of the policy creates an implied contract. [/ QUOTE ] Is there any indication when you approach a Circuit City from the outside that they intend to search you upon exit? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. There are signs posted at the entrance and at the customer service desk. There may also be signs at the registers but I dont recall for sure.
|
|
#117
09-08-2007, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
[ QUOTE ]
Deleted An implied contract that they can check your receipt, and if you don't comply then they can detain you on reasonable suspicion within a reasonable distance and time of your leaving the store. [/ QUOTE ] Deleted How many times do we need to show that refusal to submit to a bag search does not constitute reasonable suspicion before it sinks in?
|
|
#118
09-08-2007, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Being intentionally obtuse as usual? An implied contract that they can check your receipt, and if you don't comply then they can detain you on reasonable suspicion within a reasonable distance and time of your leaving the store. [/ QUOTE ] Deleted How many times do we need to show that refusal to submit to a bag search does not constitute reasonable suspicion before it sinks in? [/ QUOTE ] It's irrelevant anyway. "Reasonable suspicion" is sufficient to detain and question a private citizen only if there is a member of law enforcement involved. A store employee cannot detain you based on "reasonable suspicion" alone.
|
|
#120
09-08-2007, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: X-Post: Man arrested for not showing officer his License
All,
if there is a sign in CC that says "We will check all receipts before you leave. If you attempt to non-comply with this rule, we reserve the right to forcibly detain you. If you purchase items at CC, you agree to these terms" in a prominent place, what are people's opinions then? Does anyone know if such a sign means that they DO have the right to detain you (from a legal POV)? As is (assuming those type signs arent there) CC is really in the wrong (and obv the cop) and deserves whatever they lose. And, if they didnt put up those signs, yet had this policy, they are idiots.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
