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

[Scary_Tiger]

Post deleted by iron81

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you get more and more ridiculous with every post? You're far further removed from reality than Nielsio and friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how those who scream love for America the loudest and condemn the rest as anti-American, are also the first in line to want to trample every great thing American supposedly stands for -- like freedom and democracy. With every post, Copernicus and company show their disdain for liberty. And they'll claim it's all part of their deep love for it, so it takes draconian measures to "protect" it. An example of this effect is Hannity's book "Let Freedom Ring" as a title for pages of trash about a stronger govt, liberal bashing, less personal freedom, defending all American foreign policy (even when opposed to freedom and self-determination), etc. These people just don't get that loving America does not mean one must love everything America or its police/military/leaders do. In fact, if you really love America and its ideals, you should vehemently speak out when your govt or its officials trample liberty, freedom, self-determination, democracy, etc. To do otherwise shows you don't value supposed American ideals, only American power and wealth.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. How can you possibly think that anything you wrote is actually right?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to rub it in Copernicus' face how wrong he is on this, here's a forum of police officers discussing this very issue with the consensus being that you cannot be detained for not letting someone check your receipt and that to try and detain you in any way without probable cause that you shoplifted something constitutes false imprisonment.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72907

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not "rubbing anything in my face". If you bother to do the research you will find that it varies state by state, where some states talk about "reasonable cause" while others talk about "reasonable suspicion", two totally different standards. In the "reasonable suspicion" states there have been no challenges that I could find regarding detention for not showing a receipt. virtually all states allow shopkeepers to detain under one of those two standards.

I don't link to discussions on bulletin boards because they are extremely unreliable. If you want to use that as a standard there are several discussions on lawyer boards that render the opinion that if a sign is conspicuously posted or there is a reasonable expectation on behalf of the shopper that a receipt must be shown, then the store has the right to inspect.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
...In fact, if you really love America and its ideals, you should vehemently speak out when your govt or its officials trample liberty, freedom, self-determination, democracy, etc. To do otherwise shows you don't value supposed American ideals, only American power and wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I can't comprehend how people really see any of the actions taken by the CC employees or the PO in this case as anything other then onerous and downright UNAmerican.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
if...there is a reasonable expectation on behalf of the shopper that a receipt must be shown, then the store has the right to inspect.

[/ QUOTE ]
A right to inspect, sure (whatever that means), but the right to detain? Can you forcibly arrest/detain someone for breaching a civil contract with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity? That's a resounding no I think.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/...-circuit-city/

[/ QUOTE ]

i gotta give the guy credit. i'd have just handed over the receipt and given the cop my liscense. at worst i'd have not handed over the receipt and given the cop my liscense to file a complaint against the store dude.

but if he's willing to fight for our rights, more power to him. my personal freedoms i guess are worth less than the cost / inconvenience of handing over a receipt, giving a cop my ID and defending myself in court

Barron

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing that the obstruction charge will be dismissed. While I think he's pretty foolish, there is no legal requirement to show ID to an officer. He did nothing illegal. I'm a little less certain about showing receipt to store personnel. It's private property and I think they should have some latitude as to what rules they establish.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong and he should lose. Stores post that they have the right to inspect packages on leaving, and they have every right to do so to discourage shoplifting. They offer the opportunity to check bags that you bring into the store and do not examine the contents of those, since they are out of the customers control and cant be used to hide goods.

As far as the section of the Ohio law he quotes, it requires disclosure of Name Address and DOB. It does not specify the means of disclosure. Since that it is the information shown on a DL, and a policeman who suspects a crime cannot be expected to take the suspects word for it, the law can easily be interpreted as requiring some sort of identification including a DL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. How can you possibly think that anything you wrote is actually right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regrettably, the concept of basic civil liberties is almost dead in this country. Between the "War on Drugs", "War on Terror" and the illegal alien hysteria, we are rapidly approaching the point where you can become a non-person simply by losing a few documents.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
lol at this story. Once I read ACLU in the opening paragraph, somehow I knew what was coming. So instead of opening his bag and going with standard procedure, he decided to take a stand against a business (wouldn't the more effective stand be not giving them his money?), [censored] with people, and he get what he deserves. Good, well done, douche. This is what is [censored] wrong with this country, this is why there is 2 lawyers for every 1 person. 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. gg. I hope he goes to jail and tries to pull some cute stuff there.

"but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing."

lolololol
enjoy life.

This pathetic idiot is going to spend his life getting fired and hating america and having everyone around him despise him. awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this guy's response.

[ QUOTE ]
Once I read ACLU in the opening paragraph, somehow I knew what was coming.

[/ QUOTE ] Usually it means someone felt their civil rights were violated. If that's what he meant, he was probably right.

[ QUOTE ]
this is why there is 2 lawyers for every 1 person.

[/ QUOTE ] Its such interesting hyperbole. I'm trying to picture how it could be possible. It would require some strange universe where there are more people with the job of lawyer then there are people.

"Because every liberal idiot who..." Ouch. Guess we know the partisan nature of this poster. Obviously anyone who felt his rights were being abused must just be a liberal idiot.

"...and slow down society" I thought I felt society slowing down a little lately. I wasn't sure the cause until this guy pointed it out.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope he goes to jail and tries to pull some cute stuff there.


[/ QUOTE ] Like raising bunnys? Its interesting that this guy has committed such a crime in your eyes that you're wishing him imprisonment and (seemingly) future harm.

"This pathetic idiot is going to spend his life getting fired" He's going to spend his life getting fired?

"and hating america" What exactly has led you to believe he hates America? (other then it being rote comments that many conservatives love to blindly toss out at anyone they perceive being liberal.) Do you honestly think you can draw this conclusion based on this incident?

"and having everyone around him despise him. awesome." based on this one incident you can conclude that everyone around him hates him?

Very odd reaction. I'm not sure I understand all the conclusions he came to though.