Wasn’t addressed to me, but for starters I don’t take these UCLU type’s word of what is the law there, or take for granted their claim this is the only law that comes into play. I’ve only skimmed this thread because the whinning is so pathetic, but from what I’ve seen those claiming to actually be lawyers aren’t supporting the position of the ACLU types, they’re actually refuting it.
Secondly I respect the rights of the store owners to combat theft more than I respect the rights of some yahoo refusing to cooperate with the store policy to prevent theft, a policy which is standard in many stores across the states. If as a shopper you don’t like their anti-theft policy, think it’s a little too infringing on your rights to be a potential thief, go somewhere else and shop, steal, or whatever else you think you earned the right to do in THEIR store.
I also don’t give the benefit of the doubt to some guy that clogs up the 911 emergency hotline with his cries that the common store practice to validate his receipt somehow crossed the threshold into justified emergency. What are the laws about bogus emergency calls to 911, well we’re not hearing anything from the ACLU types on that, apparently according to them 911 is just the number you dial whenever you get your feelings hurt.
Bottom line the lawyers, police, judge and jury will sort it out, they may even rule that this guy is deserving of $5 million in damages, we’ve seen worse verdicts before of course. In the meantime, most folks rightfully see this as some opportunistic liberal, who was just looking for his chance to whine about some other horrible mistreatment he suffered, imagine, being asked for your ID by a police officer after calling them to the scene, those bogus 911 emergency calls must be free for illegal aliens too.
IMHO, the issue at hand is rather fundamental, and is probably why such strong volition has been expressed by multiple parties.
What are the material consequences of the entire affair? Nothing really.
The merchandise was paid for, so no theft occurred.
IMHO, the entire affair touches upon the issue of volition and the respect of the volition of another person.
The processing of transactions is one of the oldest studies in human history. The transaction is probably the first step building upon human volition involving material goods. It recognizes how two persons are able to respect the volition of one another and perform the ownership exchange of a particular commodity. This basic notion is at the root of contract law. It also is at the basis of the Uniform Commercial Code, which recognized that most people seek to transact daily on multiple items, where the procedures of transactions might be formalized and simplified as best possible to meet the most good for all arties involved, while respecting their volition and rights.
The heart of this affair is based upon one party believing they had completed all they had been obligated to perform in completing a transaction, while the other party believed additional steps were required.
The store, in effect, treats the store real estate as the environment of their transactions and has attempted to required passage out of that store to implement a search of all persons leaving the store.
The store might implement that search selectively, when they identify somebody leaving the store with an object they normally sell in the store. As proof of ownership, they ask to see the receipt, as a record of the purchase transaction, thereby verifying the ownership of the property leaving the store property. If they physically prevent the customer from leaving, then technically, they are detaining him and in some states meet the legal definition of arresting the person in their verification process.
IMHO, the heart of the issue regards how merchants allow the public to enter and leave their premises. The customer probably felt the transaction had been completed and the receipt check was a voluntary search which he wasn’t obligated to accept. From the guard’s perspective, the customer leaving met minmal conditions for the profile of a shoplifter as store policy defined it. From the store manager’s perspective, all customers fall into a routine where they are all voluntarily searched as their verification process to combat shoplifting and may have confused the second search transaction as being a necessary component of any purchase transaction.
In all situations, we have an issue of respecting the volition of all parties not being fully respected.
The customer respected his volition by refusing an offer for a voluntary search, while the guard perceived the receipt search to be mandatory as the person leaves the store.
This appears to be the crux of the conflict. One perceives the search as voluntary, the other perceives the search as mandatory. Situation then escalates to unlawful detention from the perspective of the customer and to a shopkeeper’s arrest from the perspective of the store.
There might be a number of mechanisms to prevent such a conflict including:
1) Floor Plan shaping to allow the cashier act as the final security checkpoint, thereby completeing the transaction verification at the time of purchase.
a) Some argue the major source of theft is from employees themselves, so the physical security aspect is maintained by the perimeter receipt search.
2) Changing the transaction culture to double the transaction process, 2 queues instead of one, one to buy the item, one to verify those physically departing own the item.
a) I suspect this may be the strategic issue involved. IMHO, somebody is contriving these issues to maneuver the population into accepting a different operational flow in consumer culture. This may be a precursor to automated transaction processes and separating the transaction from physical security. (Mark of the Beast ping)
It’s interesting that the ACLU is so immediately involved. Almost as if a contrived situation had been developed.
Hey, it's an open forum, anyone can jump in. ;-)
The laws I've cited are directly from the Ohio statutes. I have them copied at #160 with a link.
I've stuck around on this thread only because I do wonder sometimes what the ultimate impact of "standard policy" versus law will be. If the people saying, "Show the receipt already, what's the big deal?" get their way, I guess we can have stores setting policies contrary to existing law because it's expedient for the consumer. But last time I looked, the vehicle for changing and adopting laws was the state or federal legislature, not the Circuit City manager's office.
I recall reading about a few cases where some workplaces were trying to ban firearms on their property altogether, even those that remained in workers' cars. Is that a violation of your right to self-defense, or does the private business reserve the right to violate your right?
Another firearms example - here in NJ it costs, by statute, $2 to obtain a pistol purchase permit. You are also supposed to be able to buy as many as you want at a time. There are towns, however, that have adopted a policy of charging up to $75 for a pistol purchase permit, or of limiting the number to two at a time. They've made a policy that violates the statute. Should the town's residents just pay their $75 and STFU, because maybe their town is poor and needs to raise revenue?
I know, I know, many of you are probably rolling your eyes or flailing your hands and saying "That's not the same thing!" No, maybe it's not the same, but the principle is there. If this goes to court and the store's position is upheld, suddenly we have a precedent.