Posted on 09/03/2007 3:19:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Today was an eventful day. I drove to Cleveland, reunited with my father’s side of the family and got arrested. More on that arrested part to come.
For the labor day weekend my father decided to host a small family reunion. My sister flew in from California and I drove in from Pittsburgh to visit my father, his wife and my little brother and sister. Shortly after arriving we packed the whole family into my father’s Buick and headed off to the grocery store to buy some ingredients to make monkeybread. (It’s my little sister’s birthday today and that was her cute/bizare birthday request.)
Next to the grocery store was a Circuit City. (The Brooklyn, Ohio Circuit City to be exact.) Having forgotten that it was my sister’s birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. I settled on Disney’s “Cars” game for the Nintendo Wii. I also needed to purchase a Power Squid surge protector which I paid for separately with my business credit card. As I headed towards the exit doors I passed a gentleman whose name I would later learn is Santura. As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”
As I walked through the double doors I heard Santura yelling for his manager behind me. My father and the family had the Buick pulled up waiting for me outside the doors to Circuit City. I opened the door and got into the back seat while Santura and his manager, whose name I have since learned is Joe Atha, came running up to the vehicle.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsite.michaelrighi.com ...
The article shows him being purposefully cooperative up to the point where the officer demanded ID. He allowed the cop to confirm that he had not stolen anything, apparently didn't even complain when the cop handed the bag to the employees for verification that he did not steal anything. Then when asked for ID he gave the cop his name as he is required to by law. How is that not cooperating? Or are we all supposed to cooperate when the police overstep their bounds?
What also really gets me is that after the shoplifting matter was settled, the cop apparently did not do his duty to respond to the complaint that he was called for -- someone being unlawfully detained.
so this guy will use certain laws when they serve his interests.
the point is, the Ohio law that i read about ID made no mention of paper ID. so that could be open to interpretation. is it legal in Ohio to lie about your name, DOB? if a cop reasonably suspects you of lying about your name and DOB can they lawfully compel you to show photo ID? if so, then in my experience, this cop had reasonable suspicion to insist on seeing photo ID.
this was not a stop on the street initiated by the cop. this was a 911 call placed by the complainant who then refused to verify his ID by displaying a state issued ID.
and let me tell you this: this guy has his side of the story here. i have learned there are always 3 sides to any story. my side, your side, and what actually happened.
i wish i could have seen how this guy was talking to the cop and the guard. so again i ask, was the cop simply supposed to let the guy go?
sorry. should be “unlawfully detained” in the first sentence.
Just that you made blanket statements that may be correct for your state, but laws vary from state to state. It often depends on where yo live.
I always worry about that. In any case, I tend to use "guy" and "guys" as a unisex term nowadays.
In this case we have an Ohio law that specifically states he is only required to give name, address and date of birth, and the officer arrested him for not providing ID in direct contradiction of that law. That law is not vague.
i wish i could have seen how this guy was talking to the cop and the guard. so again i ask, was the cop simply supposed to let the guy go?
According to the article the guy knew what he was getting into, that he was pulling a calculated defense of his rights, so he was apparently very carefully choosing his words and his actions as does anyone in that situation. The last thing you want to do when standing up for your rights is give them a real reason to arrest you. But at the time that ID was demanded he was suspected of no crime, and in fact had just been cleared of any suspicion of one. According to the law the officer should have let him go.
The simple fact is that he was arrested for exercising his rights under the law, and bad cops don't like it when you do that.
antiRepublicrat; “I await the outcome of his probable suit against CC for unlawful detainment and against the police department for false arrest. It might end up paying quite handsomely.”
So according to antiRebublicrat it does pay to be a dick. At least he/she hopes it does. See how you are antiRepublicrat?
I agree with you however. I think this particular dick is in it for the money. Will he get it? Who knows, but whether he does or not, he’s still a dick, and being a dick isn’t worth all the money in the world. What good is it to be rich if everyone thinks you are a dick?
I’m sure you’re aware, but this is how ACLU types operate. They want everyone to feel sorry for them, to have pity on their poor souls, but when people don’t they start looking for some loophole in the law so they can sue, or get off charges brought against them by police. Always trying to blame others for their sorry lot in life, looking for some way to “stick it to the man”, since they have no hope of ever being “the man” themselves. Obviously, most true conservatives don’t feel this way, and actually have contempt for such pathetic losers.
Meanwhile AntiRepublican’s eyes are getting big just daydreaming about how to stick it to Circuit City and the local police, he’s even making calls up there in support of the ACLU now, probably wants to turn it into some sort of class action suit where he can claim he too had his bag searched once, and wants some sort of payoff for his mistreatment now too LOL.
I've conceded that yes, it's a small thing. I'm not going to deny that the guy was trying to test a limit. But is he right? Does he have legal grounds for his refusal to show the receipt in the first place?
Let's say I have a store in Ohio. One day I find out there's lots of shoplifting going on in my store. So I sit down and scratch my head and try to come up with ways to cut down on the losses.
Hey, I say to myself, I know. I can hire a big intimidating-looking dude to sit by the exit and check people's receipts and bags on the way out.
Next day I have a big intimidating-looking dude sitting by the exit, checking receipts and bags on the way out.
The only problem is, I haven't checked my state and local statutes to see what I can or cannot legally do to try to prevent shoplifting while respecting the civil rights of my customers.
The state (Ohio) law happens to say that "a merchant, or an employee or agent of a merchant, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may... detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity." OK, so how am I determining who's worthy of suspicion and possibly detention? Can I label anyone who walks into my store suspicious, or does that fly in the face of "innocent until proven guilty" and violate the civil rights of my patrons?
Then the Ohio law says that even if I do detain someone I suspect of shoplifting, I "shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person’s consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained." So what's the definition of "property belonging to the person"? Does a receipt fall under the definition?
And as I said, maybe this seems like a small senseless thing to put up a fight about, but if the man's right he's right and NOBODY should be allowed to just make laws up as they go along. There's a formal procedure in this country for changing laws - that's where we vote and petition to get it to happen (or to not happen).
What's wrong with the store working within the confines of the law, or putting the lawyers to work looking for loopholes in the law, to practice effective loss prevention?
You cannot leave Fry’s without a bag check either.”
I do all the time.
I think he’s looking for a paycheck, so he should have finally let them look and then sued them for the embarrassment.
If he was an illegal, he’d own the store.
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.
They check mine frequently because the idiot cashier forgets to demagnetize the anti-theft stickers and the alarms go off causing a scene and a boring unnecessary wait for another blue vest-wearer to fill out some magic form V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y in longhand.
“”They check mine frequently because the idiot cashier forgets to demagnetize the anti-theft stickers and the alarms go off causing a scene and a boring unnecessary wait for another blue vest-wearer to fill out some magic form V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y in longhand.””
LOL, The tags are an effort I can accept, and I look forward to them improving. I didn’t know that they had to fill out forms for false alarms though.
in new york at least, you are required to possess a valid ID and carry it with you. what if you get hit by a car? how are the cops gonna know who to call?
if not, then a decent cop can absolutely articulate that he had PC to take the deft into custody. the totality of the circumstances would preclude me from taking this guy at his word.
you don't call the cops for help and then refuse to help with your own situation.
and you still have not answered my question: was the cop supposed to just let the guy leave?
Don’t hold your breath. My money says that this particular jerk never sees one red cent, nor should he.
Actually the courts have ruled time and time again that you can't libel a pseudonym that isn't tied to your livlihood. You can't have it both ways: Anonymity and libel are mutally exclusive, and Antirepublicrat is pretty damned anonymous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.