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.
Which is another one of the main reasons I'm not buying it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the whole thing was staged, if not a complete fabrication, in fact I'd say that's quite probable considering it's the ACLU we're dealing with. Others such as the creator of this thread obviously feel otherwise, and not only trust the ACLU on such matters but begin making calls up there and creating threads here to show their full attention and support. To see them then attempt to claim they're somehow a "conservative" supporter of the ACLU is just further proof of the dishonesty that's being exposed.
Excellent analysis, imho.
Quite plausible.
Humility would have likely prevented a problem in this case.
Thanks.
Yeah, I get that feeling that too.