[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Liberty (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/22/2007 5:41:27 PM EDT
Related to the story about the guy who was arrested for not showing his receipt as he left Circuit City was this comment seen over on Slashdot in response to the question "why not just cooperate?":
|
| My best friend drove from MD to TX to go dove hunting all because he didn't want to go through the BS checks at the airport. That and the fact he would have flown out of BWI Airport with firearms and the baggage handlers are notorious for stealing from peoples luggage there. |
|
Unfortunately, "FREE" means different things to different people. Some people are content with "FREE" meaning that as long as you show your paperwork to the authorities when asked, you should be allowed to move about to and fro with the occasional interruption being necessary for the security of the state. |
|
A lot of nice thoughts, but it leaves out a lot. Are we completely "free" to do as we please? Can a person just drive on the wrong side of the road because he is "responsible for himself" and doesn't have to answer to anyone? Or do we have certain responsibilities in a free society to follow the rules of the society in which we live? |
As long as you don't violate the rights of others, you should be free to do as you please. Blatantly endangering others obviously qualifies as such a violation. |
nope Guy knew what he was doing. Same as them imans on that plane. |
So your stance is - liberty, if you can find it? |
nope But everyone has rights. Circuit city has the right to ask to see the receipt. If you know that the store is going to ask to see your receipt when you leave and you have a problem with that they dont shop at the store. If the guy hadnt known of circuit city's policy before I could maybe say he was in the right, but he knew the policy to ask to see the receipt but he is/was an ass about it. the airline has the right to tell people they arent going to fly. |
And that mentality is exactly why many tolerate so much 'authority' being forced into our lives and we are less free as a result. Its sad really! 
|
Yes, those are called laws. Private companies don't write their own laws. |
Since technically the item was his from the moment he bought it (exchanged his money), it would be an easily argued invasion of privacy. The stuff belongs to him. What would you say if Circuit City tried to search his car? Personally, I try to avoid stores that place their security monitor right up front - just their friendly way of saying "we don't trust you - but please give us money." As for the airline - how far are you going to extend the pick and choose customers? Do I have the right to open "Whites Only Air?" ETA - my HUGE gripe, is that the police became the enforcer of corporate policy. If Circuit City doesn't like the guy they should ban him from the store. Having the cops enforce store rules reeks of technocracy. |
Certainly the stuff belongs to him, but circuit city has the right to make sure that something 'extra' isnt in his bag (or the next guy, or the guy previous). The stores, thanks to lawsuits cant selectively ask people for their receipt, they either have to ask everybody, or ask no one. Who knows this guy seems like the sorta person that would have behaved in a suspicious manner in the store in an attempt to draw an incident. The guy further compounded his problems by being as ass to the police when they asked who he was, and what was going on at a disturbance in the Circuit City parking lot... to the 'whites only airline' sure thing, I also think the fair housing act is bogus too... If you dont like the person's/company's policy for anything, dont provide them with business, or interact with them. Band together, ie practice your right of assembly and free speach, and organize boycotts to get them to change policy, or go out of business. |
Sure they do. The company I worked for did not allow beards on their property due to the possible necessity to wear a air supply respirator. As a result, they did not allow anyone on their property with a beard. Are you saying that they can't make and enforce such a policy? Think carefully before you answer.  |
|
In the end, you must ask yourself whether it is better to die on your feet or live on your knees. good quote. but hardly applies. this dumbass should have just showed his receipt. I dont understand why we are having an argument. the bussiness wanted to make sure he wasnt steeling. a simple action on his part could have avoided the problem. instead he was a whiney little bitch about it. asking to see a receipt is a legitimate request. the end. ETA: arrest was a little over the top, but they had every right to search him and make sure he wasnt a theif. |
Thanks for posting. You're one of the people for whom this thread was intended - the people who don't understand the principle of liberty. |
Sure they can make rules. But they aren't, as you said, laws. And their rules shouldn't be enforced by the government's law enforcement agents. |
You didn't think long enough.  The issue here is a common misconception. People look at a place like Circuit City and think it is a "public place". It is actually "private property". The store actually belongs to Circuit City and they allow you and I to "visit" their property to make purchases. While there, we must abide by their "rules". One of those rules is that they reserve the right to inspect packages to make sure all items in the package have been paid for. Don't like that rule? Then don't shop there. But when you go on their property, you are agreeing to abide by their rules. Many resturants have a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign at the entrance. Does a "free man" have the right to not wear a shirt or shoes? You bet. But he has no right to go on the resturant's private property with them. And, if he does, and is asked to leave and refuses to do so, they will call the police and he will be arrested for tresspassing. Another example of the police enforcing "rules" of a business. The Fourth Amendment gives us the right to be free from "unreasonable searches" by government agents. But that does not apply to other situations, such as work. My employer had a policy of random searches of our vehicles if we parked on company property. Don't like it? Then park some place else and walk in to work. But if you refused to let them search your car, you were fired. And don't waste my time with "then sue them" as it was tried and lost. They can make and enforce their rules on their property. "Private property" boys. That's the difference. |
|
Is showing a receipt really a violation of freedom or being forced to pay higher prices to offset losses to shoplifting? Showing a receipt deprives me of nothing but 10 seconds of inconvenience but shoplifting deprives me of my labor. Now that rubs me raw. The guy apparently doesn't mind letting the public know he is a fool. Having good manners is not a loss of freedom. I thank Circuit City for trying to keep shoplifting down and thus prices. You can't get out of Sam's Club without producing a receipt. Gee, maybe that is why their prices are lower. Should we boycott them? |
|
To even associate Patrick Henry's philosophy and the environment in which he developed it, with a store confirming purchases, is a sad indictment on the cluelessness of people in general. Something tells me Patrick Henry had no problem with store clerks making sure people leaving their store had purchased all of their items. He certainly wouldn't perceive it as a liberty issue akin to the colonies being treated as just a source of revenue to an overseas kingdom. |
A big +1 I guess then if going into the store and buying somthing gives that strore a reason to thinkI am a theif them were do we draw the line? Everytime you go into a market for a soda? Or you stop at the grocery store for a few things? Where is the line that you do or dont preform this check? |
|
I personally find cash registers an affront to liberty! I free man should be trusted to determine the value of the goods he is purchasing, and place the money in a big basket. Insisting on "ringing up" our purchases is insinuating I am a criminal! I WON'T STAND FOR THIS! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! |
WE don't draw the line anywhere. The store's owners draw the line... wherever they want to. Their private property... their rules. Their rights are not in conflict with yours in this case, as you are not compelled, in any way, to do business with them. |
You're missing the point too. Liberty refers to freedom from government oppression. In this case the issue of liberty didn't apply until the cops got involved. That is the line that was crossed. |
Quite right. They have every right to ask to see your receipt. And you have every right to refuse. They do NOT however have the right to detain you if you refuse, UNLESS they have evidence that you have stolen from them*. Refusal to show a receipt does not constitute that evidence. They also have the right to ban you from their store, which they may very well do if you refuse to show a receipt. * except in the case where you have signed a contract with them in which part of the agreement of shopping there is showing a receipt, as in places like Sam's club. |
The man refused to ID himself to the police during a disturbance that brought police notice. If the man had not wished to be identified by the police he should not have instigated a disturbance that brought their attention. There is a world of difference between being asked for ID for no reason, and what this guy did, no matter how he tries to spin it. |
|
I realize I'm late to this discussion, but what of the "shopkeepers' privelege?" where a store employee has the right to temporarily detain a shopper if he has a reasonable belief that the shopper may hve committed a theft. Absent this recognized right, store owners would be a a great disadvantage to shoplifting. When you enter a private store, you consent to such a possible detention if it is reasonable. Don't want to consent? don't go. |
The receipt check is not the issue. The issue is being detained against one's will without evidence of a crime having been committed. "Confirming purchases" sounds nice, but when it involves holding someone against their will, it's gone too far. |
Sounds nice, but do they have a "reasonable belief" that everyone walking out the diir may have committed a theft? Because that's what many here appear to be asserting. |
The receipt check is the very heart of the issue. His unwillingness to consent to the receipt check was the proximate cause of the detention. Store owner should have such a right, and the inability to detain someone who fails to show receipt, go through the registers, or who looks suspicious in general, would neuter that right completely. This is not about state power, but about the rights of store owners. |
well we only have the guys word that the ONLY reason they were attempting to detain him was because he didnt show his receipt. |
I am glad that you dont feel bothered by being accused of theft everytime you shop at these stores. I am also certain that when you are required to show your recipt when you leave any kind of store you will have think twice about this topic. Where will it stop? 7-eleven? Safeway (or other grocery chain)? Auto parts store? Every store, at every mall? Your favorite quicky mart? FWIW, the store can only ask to see your recipt and have no right to detain without specific reason to believe you have commited a crime. Walking from the reg to the door is not reason to believe youve been shoplifting. The sheeple around here crack me up.  |
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree upon that point. Regards |
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! |
Right the store keeper has the right to make a Citizen's arrest, but after that when I've shown that I haven't taken anything, I have the right to arrest them for false arrest, false imprisonment, and kidnapping. |
If you don't want to show a receipt, don't shop in the store. I believe in the free market. I also believe that a corporation has the FREEDOM to make such rules on their premesis, just as you have the FREEDOM not to go there. Some of you need to find a better battle than "Death Before Anti-Shoplifting Measures!" |
Asking you to show your receipt or see in your grocery bag does not in any way constitute an illegal search by the store. |
Not for kidnapping, so untwist your panties. |
Sounds like some of you just have a hardon for finding injustice. This is like people that find "racism" in a standardized test that uses the names Betty and John rather than Shaniqua and Umbatu. |
If my time here on arfcom has woke me up to any reality of human nature, it is the inconsistency of how logic or arguments are applied "inside" a group as opposed to "outside." |